












I 




I 

y 


ijT 

















■ ) 

i 





r 




r 


I 

I 


« 


,* 







I 




'J- 

t 

y S 


1 . 

































DEIOCRACT IN AMERICA, 


[IN RELATION TO POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS,] 


BT 


ALEXIS^ DE TOCQUEVILLE, 

MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE OF FRANCE, AND OF THE 
CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES, ETC., ETC. 


TRANSLATED BY HENRY REEVE, ESQ. 


ADAPTED FOR THE USE OF SCHOOLS AND DISTRICT LIBRARIES 

BY JOHN C. SPENCER, 


COUNSELLOR AT LAW. 


NEW-YORK: 

J. & H. G. LANGLEY, 8 ASTOR HOUSE 


1845. 






O' lr\ 21 lo 
J7 




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1841, by 

J. & H. G. LANGLEY, 

In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States, for the Southern 

District of New-York. 






VU 




R. C. Valentine, Stereotypor, 
45 Gold Street. 


f f 


■ f 


' /t 


A vj 



R. CitAtaBBAS’s Power Press, 
112 Fulton Street. 

















t 

T ADYERTISEMENT. 


The American publishers of M. De Tocqueville’s “Demo¬ 
cracy in America,” have been frequently solicited to furnish 
the work in a form adapted to seminaries of learning, and at 
a price which would secure its more general circulation, 
and enable trustees of School District Libraries, and other 
libraries, to place it among their collections. Desirous to 
attain these objects, they have consulted several gentlemen, in 
whose judgment they confided, and particularly the editor of 
the American editions, to ascertain whether the work was 
capable of abridgment or condensation, so as to bring the ex¬ 
pense of its publication within the necessary limits- They 
are advised that the nature of the work renders it impossible 
to condense it by omitting any remarks or illustrations of the 
author upon any subject discussed by him, even if common 
justice to him Ad not forbid any such attempt; and that the 
onl^ mode of reducing its bulk, is to exclude wholly such 
subjects as are deemed not to be essential. 

It will be recollected that the first volume was originally 
published separately, and was complete in itself. It treated 
of the influence of democracy upon the political institutions 
of the United States, and exhibited views of the nature of our 
government, and of their complicated machinery, so new, 
so striking, and so just, as to excite the admiration and even 
the wonder of our countrymen. It was universally admitted 
to be the best, if not the first systematic and philosophic view of 
the great principles of our constitutions which has been pre¬ 
sented to the world. Asa treatise upon the spirit of our gov¬ 
ernments, it was full and finished, and was deemed worthy of 
being introduced as a text-book in some of our Seminaries of 
Learning. The publication of the first volume alone would 
therefore seem to be sufficient to accomplish in the main the 
objects of the publishers above stated- 

And upon a careful re-examination of the second volume, 
this impression is confirmed. It is entirely independent of the 
first volume, and is in no way essential to a full understand¬ 
ing of the principles and views contained in that volume. It 
discusses the effects of the detnocratic principle upon the 






IV 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


tastes, feelings, habits, and manners of the Americans ; and 
although deeply interesting and valuable, yet the observations 
of the author on these subjects are better calculated for for¬ 
eign countries than for our own citizens. As he wrote for 
Europe they were necessary to his plan. They follow natu¬ 
rally and properly the profound views which had already 
been presented, and which they carry out and illustrate. 
But they furnish no new developments of those views, nor 
any facts that would be new to us. 

The publishers were therefore advised that the printing of the 
first volume complete and entire, was the only mode of attain¬ 
ing the object they had in view. They have accordingly deter¬ 
mined to adopt that course, intending, if the public sentiment 
should require it, hereafter to print the second volume in the 
same style, so that both may be had at the same moderate 
price. 

A few notes, in addition to those contained in the former 
editions, have been made by the American editor, which upon 
a reperusal of the volume seemed useful if not necessary ; 
and some statistical results of the census of 1840 have been 
added, in connection with similar results given by the author 
from returns previous to that year. 

To prevent any misconception of the extent of the volum.e 
now published, and to indicate that the whole work is not 
given, the title has been restricted thus: 

Democracy in America [in relation to Political Institutions]. 


7 


PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


The following work of M. De Tocqueville has attracted great 
attention throughout Europe, where it is universally regarded as a sound, 
philosophical, impartial, and remarkably clear and distinct view of our 
political institutions, and of our manners, opinions, and habits, as influ¬ 
encing or influenced by those institutions. Writers, reviewers, and 
statesmen of all parties, have united in the^ighest commendations of 
its ability and integrity. The people, described by a work of such a 
character, should not be the only one in Christendom unacquainted 
with its contents. At least, so thought many of our most distinguished 
men, who have urged the publishers of this edition to reprint the work, 
and present it to the American public. They have done so in the 
hope of promoting among their countrymen a more thorough know¬ 
ledge of their frames of government, and a more just appreciation of 
the great principles on which they are founded. 

But it seemed to them that a reprint in America of the views of an 
author so well entitled to regard and confidence, without any correc¬ 
tion of the few errors or mistakes that might be found, would be in 
effect to give authenticity to the whole work, and that foreign readers, 
especially, would consider silence, under such circumstances, as strong 
evidence of the accuracy of its statements. The preface to the Eng¬ 
lish edition, too, was not adapted to this country, having been written, 
as it would seem, in reference to the political questions which agitate 
Great Britain. The publishers, therefore, applied to the writer of 
this, to furnish them with a short preface, and such notes upon the 
text as might appear necessary to correct any erroneous impressions. 
Having had the honor of a personal acquaintance with M. De Tocque¬ 
ville while he was in this country; having discussed with him many 
of the topics treated of in this book; having entered deeply into the 
feelings and sentiments which guided and impelled him in his task, 
and having formed a high admiration of his character and of this pro¬ 
duction, the writer felt under some obligation to aid in procuring for 
one whom he ventures to call his friend, a hearing from those who 
were the subjects of his observations. These circumstances furnish 
to his own mind an apology for undertaking what no one seemed will¬ 
ing to attempt, notwithstanding his want of practice in literary com¬ 
position, and notwithstanding the impediments of professional avoca¬ 
tions, constantly recurring, and interrupting that strict and continued 
examination of the work, which became necessary, as well to detect 
any errors of the author, as any misunderstanding or misrepresentation 
of his meaning by his translator. If the same circumstances will atone 
in the least for the imperfections of what the editor has contributed 
ta this edition, and will serve to mitigate the severity of judgment 
upon those contributions, it is all he can hope or ask. 

The NOTES are confined, with very few exceptions, to the correc¬ 
tion of what appeared to be misapprehensions of the author in regard 
1 =^ 



VI 


PKEFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


to some matters of fict, or some principles of law, and to explaining 
his meaning where the translator had misconceived it. For the latter 
purpose the original was consulted ; and it affords great pleasure to 
bear witness to the general fidelity with which Mr. Reeve has trans¬ 
ferred the author’s ideas from French into English. He has not been 
a literal translator, and this has been the cause of the very few errors 
which have been discovered : but he has been more and better : he h is 
caught the spirit of M. De Tocqueville, has understood the senti¬ 
ment he meant to express, and has clothed it in the language whicfr 
M. De TocQUEvii.i.E would have himself used, had he possessed equal 
facility in writing the English language. 

Being confined to the objects before mentioned, the reader will not 
find any comments on the theoretical views of our author. He has 
discussed many subjects on which very different opinions are entertained 
in the United States; but with an ability, a candor, and an evident 
devotion to the cause of truth, which will commend his views to those 
who most radically dissent from them. Indeed, readers of the most 
discordant opinions will find that he frequently agrees with both sides, 
and as frequently differs from them. As an instance, his remarks on 
slavery will not be found to coincide throughout with the opinions 
either of abolitionists or of slaveholders: but they will be found to 
present a masterly view of a most perplexing and interesting subject, 
which seems to cover the whole ground, and to lead to the melancholy 
conclusion of the utter impotency of human effort to eradicate this ac¬ 
knowledged evil. But on this, and on the various topics of the deepest 
interest which are discussed in this work, it was thought that the 
American readers would be fully competent to form their own opinions, 
and to detect any errors of the author, if such there are, without any 
attempt of the present editor to enlighten them. At all events, it is to 
be hoped that the citizens of the United States will patiently read, and 
candidly consider, the views of this accomplished foreigner, however 
hostile they may be to their own preconceived opinions or prejudices. 
He says: “ There are certain truths which Americans can only learn 
from strangers, or from experience.” Let us, then, at least listen to 
one who admire^ us and our institutions, and whose complaints, when 
he makes any, are, that we have not perfected our own glorious plans, 
and that there are some things yet to be amended. We shall thus 
furnish a practical proof, that public opinion in this country is not so 
intolerant as the author may be understood to represent it. However 
mistaken he may be, his manly appeal to our understandings and to our 
consciences, should at least be heard. “ If ever,” he says, “ these 
lines are read in America, I am well assured of two things : in the first 
place, that all who peruse them will raise their voice to condemn me; 
and, in the second place, that very many of them will acquit me at the 
bottom of their consciences.” He is writing on that very sore subject, 
the tyranny of public opinion in the United States. 

Fully to comprehend the scope of the present work, the author’s 
motive and object in preparing it should be distinctly kept in vieyy. 
He has written, not for America, but for France. It was not, then, 
merely to satisfy a legitimate curiosity,” he says, that I have examined 
America: my wish has been to find instruction, by which we might 
ourselves profit.”—“I sought the image of democracy itself, with its 
inclinations, its character, its prejudices, and its passions, in order to 
learn what we have to hope or fear from its progress.” He thinks that 
the principle of democracy has sprung into new life throughout Europe, 
and particularly in France, and that it is advancing with a and 


PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


vii 


steady march to the control of all civilized governments. In his own 
country, he had seen a recent attempt to repress its energies within due 
bounds, and to prevent the consequences of its excesses. And it seems 
to be a main object with him, to ascertain whether these bounds can be 
relied upon; whether the dikes and embankments of human contrivance 
can keep within any appointed channel this mighty and majestic 
stream. Giving the fullest confidence to his declaration, that his book 
“ is written to favor no particular views and with no design of serving 
or attacking any party,” it is yet evident that his mind has been very 
open to receive impressions unfavorable to the admission into France 
of the unbounded and unlimited democracy which reigns in these 
United States. A knowledge of this inclination of his mind will 
necessarily induce some caution in his readers, while perusing those 
parts of the work which treat of the efiects of our democracy upon the 
stability of our government and its administration. While the views 
of the author, respecting the application of the democratic principle, in 
the extent that it exists with us, to the institutions of France, or to 
any of the European nations, are of the utmost importance to the peo¬ 
ple and statesmen of those countries, they are scarcely less entitled to 
the attention of Americans. He has exhibited, with admirable skill, 
the causes and circumstances which prepared our forefathers, gradually, 
for the enjoyment of free institutions, and which enable them to 
sustain, without abusing, the utmost liberty that was ever enjoyed by 
any people. In tracing these causes, in examining how far they 
continue to influence our conduct, manners, and opinions, and in search¬ 
ing for the means of preventing their decay or destruction, the intelli¬ 
gent American reader will find no better guide than M. De Tocque- 
VILLE. 

t resh from the scenes of the “ three days” revolution in France, the 
author came among us to observe, carefully and critically, the operation 
of the new principle on which the happiness of his country, and, as he 
seems to believe, the destinies of the civilized world, depend. Filled 
with the love of liberty, but remembering the atrocities which, in its 
name, had been committed under former dynasties at home, he sought 
to discover the means by which it was regulated in America, and 
reconciled with social order. By his laborious investigations, and 
minute observations of the history of the settlement of the country, and 
of its progress through the colonial state to independence, he found the 
object of his inquiry in the manners, habits, and opinions, of a people 
who had been gradually prepared, by a long course of peculiar circum¬ 
stances, and by their local position, for self-government; and he has 
explained, with a pencil of light, the mystery that has baffled Europe¬ 
ans and perplexed Americans. He exhibits us, in our present condi¬ 
tion, a new, and to Europeans, a strange people. His views of our 
political institutions are more general, comprehensive, and philosophic 
than have been presented by any writer, domestic or foreign. He has 
traced them from their source, democracy—the power of the people— 
and has steadily pursued this foundation-principle in all its forms and 
modifications : in the frame of our governments, in their administra¬ 
tion by the different executives, in our legislation, in the arrangement 
of our judiciary, in our manners, in religion, in the freedom and licen¬ 
tiousness of the press, in the influence of public opinion, and in various 
subtle recesses, where its existence was scarcely suspected. In all 
these, he analyzes and dissects the tendencies of democracy; heartily 
applauds where he can, and faithfully and independently gives warning 
of dangers that he foresees. No one can read the result of his observa- 


viii 


PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


tions without better and clearer perceptions of the structure of our 
governments, of the great pillars on which they rest, and of the dan¬ 
gers to which they are exposed: nor without a more profound and 
more intelligent admiration of the harmony and beauty of their forma¬ 
tion, and of the safeguards provided for preserving and transmitting them 
to a distant posterity. The more that genera^ and indefinite notions of 
our own liberty, greatness, happiness, &c,, are made to give place to 
precise and accurate knowledge of the true merits of our institutions, 
the peculiar objects they are calculated to attain or promote, and the 
means provided for that purpose, the better will every citizen be ena¬ 
bled to discharge his great political duty of guarding those means 
against the approach of corruption, and of sustaining them against the 
violence of party commotions. No foreigner has ever exhibited such a 
deep, clear, and correct insight of the machinery of our complicated 
systems of federal and state governments. The most intelligent Euro¬ 
peans are confounded with our imperium in imperio ; and their con¬ 
stant wonder is, that these systems are not continually jostling each 
other. M. De Tocquevilee has clearly perceived, and traced cor-' 
rectly and distinctly, the orbits in which they move, and has described, 
or rather defined, our federal government, with an accurate precision, 
unsurpassed even by an American pen. There is no citizen of this 
country who will not derive instruction from our author’s account of 
our national government, or, at least, who will not find his owm ideas 
systematised, and rendered more fixed and precise, by the perusal of 
that account. 

Among other subjects discussed by the author, that of the political 
influence of the institution of trial by jury, is one of the most curious 
and interesting. He has certainly presented it in a light entirely new, 
and as important as it is new. It may be that he has exaggerated its 
influence as “ a gratuitous public schoolbut if he has, the error will 
be readily forgiven. 

His views of religion, as connected with patriotism, in other words, 
with the democratic principle, which he steadily keeps in view, are 
conceived in the noblest spirit of philanthropy, and cannot fail to con¬ 
firm the principles already so thoroughly and universally entertained 
by the American people. And no one can read his observations on the 
union of “ church and state,” without a feeling of deep gratitude to 
the founders of our government, for saving us from such a prolific 
source of evil. 

These allusions to topics that have interested the writer, are not in¬ 
tended as an enumeration of the various subjects which will arrest the 
attention of the American reader. They have been mentioned rather 
with a view of exciting an appetite for the whole feast, than as exhibit¬ 
ing the choice dainties which cover the board. 

It remains only to observe, that in this edition the constitutions of 
the United States and of the state of New York, which had been pub¬ 
lished at large in the original and in the English edition, have been 
omitted, as they are documents to which every American reader has 
access. The map which the author annexed to his work, and which 
has been hitherto omitted, is now for the first time inserted in the 
American edition, to which has been added the census of 1840. 


PREFACE TO THE ABIERICAN EDITION. 


ix 


Ix this edition the notes of the American editor are inserted in the 
body of the work, in immediate connexion with those parts of the text 
to which they refer, and are pltfced between brackets, to distinguish 
them from those of the author, A few verbal alterations have been 
made by another hand, where they seemed necessary to correct errors 
of the printer or translator. 

In submitting this edition to the public, great gratification is felt at 
the evidence it affords of one mistake in our author’s anticipations of 
the reception of his work by the American people. They have shown, 
that if they have tender and sensitive spots, they can patiently bear 
their being probed by a friendly hand. 









TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


4 


Paob 

Preface by the American Editor. ... v 

Introduction. 1 

CHAPTER I. 

Exterior form of North America... 15 

CHAPTER II. 

Origin of the Anglo-Americans, and its Importance in Relation to 

their future Condition... 23 

Reasons of certain Anomalies which the Laws and Customs 
of the Anglo-Americans present. 41 

CHAPTER III. 

Social Condition of the Anglo-Americans. 43 

The striking Characteristic of the social Condition of the 

Anglo-Americans is its essential Democracy. 44 

Political Consequences of the social Condition of the Anglo- 
Americans. 51 

CHAPTER IV. 

The Principle of the Sovereignty of the People in America .... 52 

■ CHAPTER V. 

Necessity of examining the Condition of the States before that of 

the Union at large ... .^.. 55 

The American System of Townships and municipal Bodies. 56 

Limits of the Townships .. 56 

Authorities of the Township in New England. 59 

Existence of the Township. 61 

Public Spirit of the Townships of New England. 63 

The Counties of New England. 65 

Administration in New England. 67 

General Remarks on the Administration of the United States 76 

Of the State. 80 

Legislative Power of the State. 80 

The executive Power of the State. 82 

Political Effects of the System of local Administration in the 
United States. 83 

CHAPTER VI. 

Judicial Power in the United States, and its Influence on Political 

Society. 94 

pther Powers granted to the Au.erican Judges. 100 

























xii 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


Paob 


CHAPTER VIL 

Political Jurisdiction in the United States. 102 

CHAPTER VIII. 

The federal Constitution. 107 

History of the federal Constitution. 107 

Summary of the federal Constitution. 109 

Prerogative of the federal Government. HI 

Federal Povs'ers. 112 

Legislative Powers. 113 

A farther Difference between the Senate aud the House of 

Representatives. 115 

The executive Power.. 116 

Differences between the Position of the President of the 
United States and that of a constitutional King of France. 118 
Accidental Causes which may increase the Influence of the 

executive Government. 121 

Why the President of the United States does not require the 
Majority of the two Houses in Order to carry on the - 

Government. 122 

Election of the President. 123 

Mode of Election. 127 

Crisis of the Election. 130 

Re-Election of the President. 132 

Federal Courts. 135 

Means of determining the Jurisdiction of the federal Courts 138 

Different Cases of Jurisdiction. 140 

Procedure of the federal Courts. 146 

High Rank of the supreme Courts among the great Powers 

of the State. 148 

In what Respects the federal Constitution is superior to that 

of the States. 151 

Characteristics which distinguish the federal Constitution of 
the United States of America from all other federal Con¬ 
stitutions. 155 

Advantages of the federal System in General, and its special 

Utility in America. 158 

Why the federal System is not adapted to all Peoples, and 
how the Anglo-Americans were enabled to adopt it. 164 

CHAPTER IX. 

Why the People may strictly be said to govern in the United 
States. 172 

CHAPTER X. 

Parties in the United States. «k . 173 

Remains of the aristocratic Party in the United States. 178 

CHAPTER XI. 

Liberty of the Press in the United States... 180 

CHAPTER XII. 

Political Associations in the United States. 189 

CHAPTER XIII. 

Government of the Democracy in America. 197 

Universal Suffrage... 197 








































TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


xiii 

Page 

Choice' of the People, and instinctive Preferences of the 

American Democracy. 198 

Causes which may partly correct the Tendencies of the De¬ 
mocracy . 201 

Influence which the American Democracy has exercised on 

the Laws relating to Elections. 204 

Public Officers under the control of the Democracy in 

America. 205 

Arbitrary Power of Magistrates under the Rule of the Ame¬ 
rican Democracy. 208 

Instability of the Administration in the United States. 211 

Charges levied by the State under the rule of the American 

Democracy. 213 

Tendencies of the American Democracy as regards the Sala¬ 
ries of public Officers. 217 

Dirticulties of distinguishing the Causes which contribute to 

the Economy of the American Government. 219 

Whether the Expenditure of the United States can be com 

pared to that of France. 220 

Corruption and vices of the Rulers in a Democracy, and con¬ 
sequent Effects upon public Morality. 225 

Efforts of which a Democracy is capable. 227 

Self-control of the American Democracy. 231 

Conduct of foreign Affairs, by the American Democracy... 233 

CHAPTER XIV. 

What the real Advantages are which American Society derives 

from the Government of the Democracy. 238 

General Tendency of the Laws under the Rule of the Ame¬ 
rican Democracy, and Habits of those who apply them... 233 

Public Spirit in the United States. 242 

Notion of Rights in the United States. 245 

Respect for the Law in the United States. 248 

Activity which pervades all the Branches of the Body politic 
in the United States; Influence which it exercises upon 
Society. 250 

CHAPTER XV. 

Unlimited Power of the Majority in the United States, and its 

Consequences. 255 

How the unlimited Power of the Majority increases in Ame¬ 
rica, the Instability of Legislation inherent in Democracy 257 

Tyranny of the Majority. 259 

Effects of the unlimited Power of the Majority upon the ar¬ 
bitrary Authority of the American public Officers. 263 

Power exercised by the Majority in America upon public 

Opinion. 264 

Effects of the Tyranny of the Majority upon the national 

Character of the Americans. 267 

The greatest Dangers of the American Republics proceed 
from the unlimited Power of the Majority.•.. 271 

CHAPTER XVI. 

Causes which Mitigate the Tyranny of the Majority in the United 

States. 273 

Absence of central Administration. 273 




























Xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Fao* 

The Profession of the Law in the United States serves to 

Counterpoise the Democracy.*. 275 

Trial by Jury in the United States considered as a political 
Institution. 284 

CHAPTER XVII. 

Principal Causes which tend to maintain the democratic Repub¬ 
lic in the United States. 292 

Accidental or providential Causes which contribute to the 
Maintenance of the democratic Republic in the United 

States...... 292 

Influence of the Laws upon the Maintenance of the demo¬ 
cratic Republic in the United States... 303 

Influence of Manners upon the Maintenance of the democra¬ 
tic Republic in the United States. 303 

Religion considered as a political Institution, which power¬ 
fully Contributes to the Maintenance of the democratic 

Republic among the Americans. 304 

Indirect Influence of religious Opinions upon political So¬ 
ciety in the United States. 307 

Principal Causes which render Religion powerful in America 312 
How the Instruction, the Habits, and the practical Experi¬ 
ence of the Americans, promote the Success of their demo¬ 
cratic Institutions. 319 

The Laws contribute more to the Maintenance of the demo¬ 
cratic Republic in the United States than the physical Cir¬ 
cumstances of the Country, and the Manners more than 

the Laws. 324 

Whether Laws and Manners are sufficient to maintain demo¬ 
cratic Institutions in other Countries beside America.... 328 

Importance of what precedes with respect to the State of 
Europe. 331 

CHAPTER XVIIL 

The present and probable future Condition of the three Races 

which Inhabit the Territory of the United States. 335 

The present and probable future Condition of the Indian 
Tribes which Inhabit the Territory possessed by the Union 340 
Situation of the black Population in the United States, and 
Dangers with which its Presence threatens the Whites... 360 

What are the Chances in favor of the Duration of the Ame¬ 
rican Union, and what Dangers threaten it. 386 

Of the republican Institutions of the United States, and what 

their Chances of Duration are. 422 

Reflections on the Causes of the commercial Prosperity of 

the United States. 428 

Conclusion. 43 G 

Appendix. 443 























V 


✓ « 


'i;. . s- 

. ' . > 


1/ 



f' 


' 1 ' 


■'«'**** j " r-> 





















?K^-- 














i 

{ 

i 


I 

t 

1 

I 

I 


i i 




r 



: 


i. 


i 


I 

I 

I 


J 




1 

i 


j 


I 

I 







INTRODUCTION. 


Among the novel objects that attracted my attention during 
my stay in the United States, nothing struck-me more forcibly 
than the general equality of conditions. I readily discovered 
the prodigious influence which this primary fact exercises on 
the whole course of society, by giving a certain direction to 
public opinion, and a certain tenor to the laws ; by imparting 
new’ maxims to the governing powers, and peculiar habits to 
the governed. 

I speedily perceived that the influence of this fact extends 
far beyond the political character and the laws of the country, 
and that it has no less empire over civil society than over the 
government; it creates opinions, engenders sentiments, sug¬ 
gests the ordinary practices of life, and modifies whatever it 
does not produce. 

The more I advanced in the study of American society, 
the more I perceived that the equality of conditions is the fun¬ 
damental fact from which all others seem to be derived, and 
the central point at which all my observations constantly 
terminated. 

I then turned rhy thoughts to our own hemisphere, where I 
imagined that I discerned something analogous to the specta¬ 
cle which the New World presented to me. I observed that 
the equality of conditions is daily advancing towards those 
extreme limits which it seems to have reached in the United 
States ; and that the democracy which governs the American 
communities, appears to be rapidly rising into power in 
Europe. 

I hence conceived the idea of the book which is now before 
the reader. 

It is evident to all alike that a great democratic revolution 
is going on among us ; but there are two opinions as to its 
nature and consequences. To some it appears to be a novel 
accident, which as such may still be checked; to others it 
seems irresistible, because it is the most uniform, the most 
2 





2 


INTRODUCTION. 


ancient, and tlie most permanent tendency which is to be 
found in history. 

Let us recollect the situation of France seven hundred 
years ago, when the territory was divided among a small 
number of families, who were the owners of the soil and the 
rulers of the inhabitants ; the right of governing descended 
with the family inheritance from generation to generation; 
force was the only means by which man could act on man ; 
and landed property was the sole source of power. 

Soon, however, the political power of the clergy was found¬ 
ed, and began to exert itself; the clergy opened its ranks to 
all classes, to the poor and the rich, the villain and the lord ; 
equality penetrated into the government through the church, 
and the being who, as a serf, must have vegetated in perpe¬ 
tual bondage, took his place as a priest in the midst of nobles, 
and not unfrequently above the heads of kings. 

The different relations of men became more complicated 
and more numerous, as society gradually became more sta¬ 
ble and more civilized. Thence the want of civil laws was 
felt; and the order of legal functionaries soon rose from the 
obscurity of the tribunals and their dusty chambers, to ap¬ 
pear at the court of the monarch, by the side of the feudal 
barons in their ermine and their mail. 

While the kings were ruining themselves by their great 
enterprises, and the nobles exhausting their resources by 
private wars, the lower orders were enriching themselves by 
commerce. The influence of money began to be perceptible 
in state affairs. The transactions of business opened a new 
road to power, and the financier rose to a station of political 
influence in which he was at once flattered and despised. 

Gradually the spread of mental acquirements, and the in¬ 
creasing taste for literature and art, opened chances of suc¬ 
cess to talent; science became the means of government, 
intelligence led to social power, and the man of letters took 
a part in the affairs of the state. 

The value attached to the privileges of birth, decreased in 
the exact proportion in which new paths were struck out to 
advancement. In the eleventh century nobility was beyond 
all price; in the thirteenth it might be purchased; it was 
conferred for the first time in 1270 ; and equality was thus 
introduced into the government by the aristocracy itself. 

In the course of these seven hundred years, it sometimes 
happened that, in order to resist the authority of the crown, 
or to diminish the power of their rivals, the nobles granted a 
certain share of political rights to the people. Or, more fre- 


INTRODUCTION. 


3 


quently, the king permitted the lower orders to enjoy a degree 
of power, with the intention of repressing the aristocracy. 

In France the kings have always been the most active and 
the most constant of levellers. When they were strong and 
ambitious, they spared no pains to raise the people to the level 
of the nobles; when they were temperate or weak, they 
allowed the people to rise above themselves. Some assisted 
the democracy by their talents, others by their vices. Louis 
XI. and Louis XIV. reduced every rank beneath the throne 
to the same subjection ; Louis XV. descended, himself and 
all his court, into the dust. 

As soon as land was held on any other than a feudal tenure, 
and personal property began in its turn to confer influence 
and power, every improvement which was introduced in com¬ 
merce or manufacture, was a fresh element of the equality 
of conditions. Henceforward every new discovery, every 
new want which it engendered, and every new desire which 
craved satisfaction, was a step toward the universal level. 
The taste for luxury, the love of war, the sway of fashion, 
the most superficial, as well as the deepest passions of the 
human heart, co-operated to enrich the poor and to empover- 
ish the rich. 

From the time when the exercise of the intellect became 
the source of strength and of wealth, it is impossible not to 
consider every addition to science, every fresh truth, and 
every new idea, as a germe of power placed within the reach 
of the people. Poetry, eloquence, and memory, the grace of 
wit, the glow of imagination, the depth of thought, and all 
the gifts which are bestowed by Providence with an equal 
hand, turned to the advantage of the democracy; and even 
when they were in the possession of its adversaries, they still 
served its cause by throwing into relief the natural greatness 
of man ; its conquests spread, therefore, with those of civili- 
^ sation and knowledge ; and literature became an arsenal, 
where the poorest and weakest could always find weapons to 
their hand. 

In perusing the pages of our history, we shall scarcely meet 
with a single great event, in the lapse of seven hundred 
years, which has not turned to the advantage of equality. 

The crusades and the wars of the English decimated the 
nobles, and divided their possessions ; the erection of com¬ 
munes introduced an element of democratic liberty into the 
bosom of feudal monarchy ; the invention of firearms equal¬ 
ized the villain and the noble on the field of battle ; printing 
opened the same resources to the minds of all classes ; the 







4 


INTRODUCTION. 


post was organized so as to bring the same information to the 
door of the poor man’s cottage and to the gate of the palace; 
and protestantism proclaimed that all men are alike able to 
find the road to heaven. The discovery of America offered 
a thousand new paths to fortune, and placed riches and power 
within the reach of the adventurous and the obscure. 

If we examine what has happened in France at intervals 
of fifty years, beginning with the eleventh century, we shall 
invariably perceive that a twofold revolution has taken place 
in the state of society. The noble has gone down on the so¬ 
cial ladder, and the roturier has gone up ; the one descends 
as the other rises. Every half-century brings them nearer 
to each other, and they will very shortly meet. 

^ Nor is this phenomenon at all peculiar to France. Whith¬ 
ersoever we turn our eyes, we shall discover the same con¬ 
tinual revolution throughout the whole of Christendom. 

The various occurrences of national existence have every¬ 
where turned to the advantage of democracy ; all men have 
aided it by their exertions; those who have intentionally la¬ 
bored in its cause, and those who have served it unwittingly 
—those who have fought for it, and those who have declared 
themselves its opponents—have all been driven along in the 
same track, have all labored to one end, some ignorantly, 
and some unwillingly; all have been blind instruments in the 
hands of God. 

The gradual development of the equality of conditions is, 
therefore, a providential fact, and it possesses all the charac¬ 
teristics of a divine decree: it is universal, it is durable, it 
constantly eludes all human interference, and all events as 
well as all men contribute to its progress. 

Would it, then, be wise to imagine that a social impulse 
which dates from so far back, can be checked by the efforts 
of a generation ? Is it credible that the democracy which 
has annihilated the feudal system, and vanquished kings, will 
respect the citizen and the capitalist ? Will it stop now tliat 
it has grown so strong and its adversaries so weak ? 

None can say which way we are going, for all terms of 
comparison are wanting : the equality of conditions is more 
complete in the Christian countries of the present day, than 
it has been at any time, or in any part of the world ; so that 
the extent of what already exists prevents us from foreseeing 
what may be yet to come. 

The whole book which is here offered to the public, has 
been written under the impression of a kind of religious 
dread, produced in the author’s mind by the contemplation of 


INTRODUCTION. 


5 


so irresistible a revolution, which has advanced for centuries 
in spite of such amazing obstacles, and which is still pro¬ 
ceeding in the midst of the ruins it has made. 

It is not necessary that God himself should speak in order 
to disclose to us the unquestionable signs of his will; we can 
discern them in the habitual course of nature, and in the in¬ 
variable tendency of events; I know, without a special re¬ 
velation, that the planets move in the orbits traced by the 
Creator’s fingers. 

If the men of our time were led by attentive observation 
and by sincere reflection, to acknowledge that the gradual 
and progressive development of social equality is at once the 
past and future of their history, this solitary truth would con¬ 
fer the sacred character of a divine decree upon the change. 
To attempt to check democracy would be in that case to re¬ 
sist the will of God ; and the nations would then be constrain¬ 
ed to make the best of the social lot awarded to them by 
Providence. 

The Christian nations of our age seem to me to present 
a most alarming spectacle; the impulse which is bear¬ 
ing them along is so strong that it cannot be stopped, but it is 
not yet so rapid that it cannot be guided : their fate is in their 
hands; yet a little while and it may be so no longer. 

The first duty which is at this time imposed upon those 
who direct our affairs is to educate the democracy ; to warm 
its faith, if that be possible ; to purify its morals; to direct 
its energies; to substitute a knowledge of business for its 
inexperience, and an acquaintance with its true interests for 
its blind propensities ; to adapt its government to time and 
place, and to modify it in compliance with the occurrences 
and the actors of the age. 

A new science of politics is indispensable to a new world. 

This, however, is what we think of least; launched in the 
middle of a rapid stream, we obstinately fix our eyes on the 
ruins which may still be descried upon the shore we have 
left, while the current sweeps us along, and drives us back¬ 
ward toward the gulf. 

In no country in Europe has the great social revolution 
which I have been describing, made such rapid progress as 
in France; but it has always been borne on by chance. 
•The heads of the state have never had any forethought for 
its exigences, and its victories have been obtained without 
their consent or without their knowledge. The most power¬ 
ful, the most intelligent, and the most moral classes of the 
nation have never attempted to connect themselves with it in 

2 * 







6 


INTRODUCTION. 


order to guide it. The people have consequently been aban¬ 
doned to its wild propensities, and it has grown up like those 
outcasts who receive their education in the public streets, and 
who are unacquainted with aught but the vices and wretched¬ 
ness of societ)^ The existence of a democracy was seem¬ 
ingly unknown, when, on a sudden, it took possession of the 
supreme power. Everything was then submitted to its ca¬ 
prices ; it was worshipped as the idol of strength; until, 
when it was enfeebled by its own excesses, the legislator 
conceived the rash project of annihilating its power, instead 
of instructing it and correcting its vices; no attempt was 
made to fit it to govern, but all were bent on excluding it 
from the government. 

The consequence of this has been that the democratic re¬ 
volution has been effected only in the material parts of society, 
without that concomitant change in laws, ideas, customs, and 
manners, which was necessary to render such a revolution 
beneficial. We have gotten a democracy, but without the 
conditions which lessen its vices, and render its natural ad¬ 
vantages more prominent; and although we already perceive 
the evils it brings, we are ignorant of the benefits it may 
confer. 

While the power of the crown, supported by the aristo¬ 
cracy, peaceably governed the nations of Europe, society 
possessed, in the midst of its wretchedness, several different 
advantages which can now scarcely be appreciated or con¬ 
ceived. 

The power of a part of his subjects was an insurmounta¬ 
ble barrier to the tyranny of the prince; and the monarch 
who felt the almost divine character which he enjoyed in the 
eyes of the multitude, derived a motive for the just use of his 
power from the respect which he inspired. 

High as they were placed above the people, the nobles 
could not but take that calm and benevolent interest in its fate 
which the shepherd feels toward his flock ; and without ac¬ 
knowledging the poor as their equals, they watched over the 
destiny of those whose welfare Providence had intrusted to 
their care. 

The people, never having conceived the idea of a social 
condition different from its own, and entertaining no expecta¬ 
tion of ever ranking with its chiefs, received benefits from 
them without discussing their rights. It grew attached to 
them when they were clement and just, but it submitted with¬ 
out resistance or servility to their exactions, as to the inevita¬ 
ble visitations of the arm of God. Custom, and the manners 


INTRODUCTION. 




of the time, had moreover created a species of law in the 
midst of violence, and established certain limits to op¬ 
pression. 

As the noble never suspected that any one would attempt 
to deprive him of the privileges which he believed to be le¬ 
gitimate, and as the serf looked upon his own inferiority as a 
consequence of the immutable order of nature, it is easy to 
imagine that a mutual exchange of good-will took place be¬ 
tween two classes so differently gifted by fate. Inequality 
and wretchedness were then to be found in society; but the 
souls of neither rank of men were degraded. 

Men are not corrupted by the exercise of power or debased 
by the habit of obedience; but by the exercise of power 
which they believe to be illegal, and by obedience to a rule 
which they consider to be usurped and oppressive. 

On one side were wealth, strength, and leisure, accompa¬ 
nied by the refinement of luxury, the elegance of taste, the 
pleasures of wit, and the religion of art. On the other were 
labor, and a rude ignorance; but in the midst of this coarse 
and ignorant multitude, it was not uncommon to meet with 
energetic passions, generous sentiments, profound religious 
convictions, and independent virtues. 

The body of a state thus organized, might boast of its sta¬ 
bility, its power, and above all, of its glory. 

But the scene is now changed, and gradually the two ranks 
mingle; the divisions which once severed mankind, are low- 
ered ; property is divided, power is held in common, the light 
of intelligence spreads, and the capacities of all classes are 
equally cultivated ; the state becomes democratic, and the 
empire of democracy is slowly and peaceably introduced into 
the institutions and manners of the nation. 

I can conceive a society in which all men would profess an 
equal attachment and respect for the laws of which they are 
the common authors ; in which the authority of the state 
would be respected as necessary, though not as divine; and 
the loyalty of the subject to the chief magistrate would not 
be a passion, but a quiet and rational persuasion. Every in¬ 
dividual being in the possession of rights which he is sure to 
retain, a kind of manly reliance and reciprocal courtesy 
would arise between all classes, alike removed from pride 
and meanness. 

The people, well acquainted with its true interests, would 
allow, that in order to profit by the advantages of society, it is 
necessary to satisfy its demands. In this state of things, the 
voluntary association of the citizens might supply the indi- 







0 


INTRODUCTION. 


vidual exertions of the nobles, and the community would be 
alike protected from anarchy and from oppression. 

I admit that in a democratic state thus constituted, society 
will not be stationary ; but the impulses of the social body 
may be regulated and directed forward; if there be less 
splendor than in the halls of an aristocracy, the contrast of 
misery will be less frequent also; the pleasures of enjoy¬ 
ment may be less excessive, but those of comfort will be more 
general; the sciences may be less perfectly cultivated, but 
ignorance will be less common ; the impetuosity of the feel¬ 
ings will be repressed, and the habits of the nation softened ; 
there will be more vices and fewer crimes. 

In the absence of enthusiasm and of an ardent faith, great 
sacrifices may be obtained from the members of a common¬ 
wealth by an appeal to their understandings and their experi¬ 
ence : each individual will feel the same necessity for uniting 
with his fellow-citizens to protect his own weakness ; and as 
he knows that if they are to assist he must co-operate, he will 
readily perceive that his personal interest is identified with the 
interest of the community. 

The nation, taken as a whole, will be less brilliant, less 
glorious, and perhaps less strong; but the majority of the 
citizens will enjoy a greater degree of prosperity, and the 
people will remain quiet, not because it despairs of meliora¬ 
tion, but because it is conscious of the advantages of its con¬ 
dition. 

If all the consequences of this state of things were not good 
or useful, society would at least have appropriated all such 
as were useful and good; and having once and for ever re¬ 
nounced the social advantages of aristocracy, mankind would 
enter into possession of all the benefits which democracy can 
afford. 

But here it may be asked what we have adopted in the 
place of those institutions, those ideas, and those customs of 
our forefathers which we have abandoned. 

The spell of royalty is broken, but it has not been suc¬ 
ceeded by the majesty of the laws ; the people have learned 
to despise all authority. But fear now extorts a larger tri¬ 
bute of obedience than that which was formerly paid by 
reverence and by love. 

I perceive that we have destroyed those independent beings 
which were able to cope with tyranny single-handed; but it 
is the government that has inherited the privileges of which 
families, corporations, and individuals, have been deprived; 
the weakness of the whole community has, therefore, sue- 




INTRODUCTION. 


9 


ceeded to that influence of a small body of citizens, which, if 
it was sometimes oppressive, was often conservative. 

The division of property has lessened the distance which 
separated the rich from the poor; but it would seem that the 
nearer they draw to each other, the greater is their mutual 
hatred, and the more vehement the envy and the dread with 
which they resist each other’s claims to power; the notion of 
right is alike insensible to both classes, and force affords to 
both the only argument for the present, and the only 
guarantee for the future. 

The poor man retains the prejudices of his forefathers 
without their faith, and their ignorance without their virtues ; 
he has adopted the doctrine of self-interest as the rule of his 
actions, without understanding the science which controls it, 
and his egotism is no less blind than his devotedness was 
formerly. 

If society is tranquil, it is not because it relies upon its 
strength and its well-being, but because it knows its weak- 
ness and its infirmities ; a single effort may cost it its life j 
everybody feels the evil, but no one has courage or energy 
enough to seek the cure ; the desires, the regret, the sorrows, 
and the joys of the time, produce nothing that is visible or 
permanent, like the passions of old men which terminate in 
impotence. 

We have, then, abandoned whatever advantages the old 
state of things afforded, without receiving any compensation 
from our present condition ^ having destroyed an aristocracy, 
we seem inclined to survey its ruins with complacency, and 
to fix our abode in the midst of them. 

The phenomena which the intellectual world presents, are 
not less deplorable. The democracy of France, checked m 
its course or abandoned to its lawless passions, has over¬ 
thrown whatever crossed its path, and has shaken all that it 
has not destroyed. Its control over society has not been 
gradually introduced, or peaceably established, but it has 
constantly advanced in the midst of disorder, and the agita- 
tion of a conflict. In the heat of the struggle each partisan 
is hurried beyond the limits of his opinions by the opinions 
and the excesses of his opponents, until he loses sight ot the 
end of his exertions, and holds a language which disguises 
his real sentiments or secret instincts. Hence arises the 
strange confusion which we are beholding. 

I cannot recall to my mind a passage in history more 
worthy of sorrow and of pity than the scenes which are h^I^ 
pening under our eyes; it is as if the natural bond which 







10 


INTRODUCTION. 


unites the opinions of man to his tastes, and his actions to his 
principles, was now broken ; the sympathy which has always 
been acknowledged between the feelings and the ideas ot 
mankind, appears to be dissolved, and all the laws of moral 
analogy to be abolished. 

Zealous Christians may be found among us, whose minds 
are nurtured in the love and knowledge of a future life, and 
who readily espouse the cause of human liberty, as the 
source of all moral greatness. Christianity, which has de- 
declared that all men are equal in the sight of God, will not 
refuse to acknowledge that all citizens are equal in the eye 
of the law. But, by a singular concourse of events, religion 
is entangled in those institutions which democracy assails, 
and it is not unfrequently brought to reject the equality it 
loves, and to curse that cause of liberty as a foe, which it 
might hallow by its alliance. 

By the side of these religious men I discern others whose 
looks are turned to the earth more than to heaven; they are 
the partisans of liberty, not only as the source of the noblest 
virtues, but more especially as the root of all solid advan¬ 
tages ; and they sincerely desire to extend its sway, and to 
impart its blessings to mankind. It is natural that they 
should hasten to invoke the assistance of religion, for they 
must know that liberty cannot be established without mo¬ 
rality, nor morality without faith; but they have seen 
religion in the ranks of their adversaries, and they inquire no 
farther ; some of them attack it openly, and the remainder are 
afraid to defend it. 

In former ages slavery has been advocated by the venal 
and slavish-minded, while the independent and the warm¬ 
hearted were struggling without hope to save the liberties of 
mankind. But men of high and generous characters are 
now to be met with, whose opinions are at variance with 
their inclinations, and who praise that servility which they 
have themselves never known. Others, on the contrary, 
speak in the name of liberty as if they were able to feel its 
sanctity and its majesty, and loudly claim for humanity 
those rights which they have always disowned. 

There are virtuous and peaceful individuals whose pure 
morality, quiet habits, affluence, and talents, fit them to be 
the leaders of the surrounding population; their love of their 
country is sincere, and they are prepared to make the great¬ 
est sacrifices to its welfare, but they confound the abuses of 
civilisation with its benefits, and the idea of evil is insepara¬ 
ble in their minds from that of novelty. 


INTRODUCTION. 


11 


Not far from this class is another party, whose object is to 
materialise mankind, to hit upon what is expedient without 
heeding what is just; to acquire knowledge without faith, 
and prosperity apart from virtue; assuming the title of the 
champions of modern civilisation, and placing themselves in 
a station which they usurp with insolence, and from which 
they are driven by their own unworthiness. 

Where are we then ? 

The religionists are the enemies of liberty, and the friends 
of liberty attack religion; the high-minded and the noble 
advocate subjection, and the meanest and most servile minds 
preach independence ; honest and enlightened citizens are 
opposed to all progress, while men without patriotism and 
without principles, are the apostles of civilisation and of in¬ 
telligence. 

Has such been the fate of the centuries which have pre¬ 
ceded our own ? and has man always inhabited a world, like 
the present, where nothing is linked together, where virtue is 
without genius, and genius without honor; where the love of 
order is confounded with a taste for oppression, and the holy 
rites of freedom with a contempt of law ; where the light 
thrown by conscience on human actions is dim, and where 
nothing seems to be any longer forbidden or allowed, honor¬ 
able or shameful, false or true ? 

I cannot, however, believe that the Creator made man to 
leave him in an endless struggle with the intellectual mise¬ 
ries which surround us : God destines a calmer and a more 
certain future to the communities of Europe; I am unac¬ 
quainted with his designs, but I shall not cease to believe in 
them because I cannot fathom them, and I had rather mis¬ 
trust my own capacity than his justice. 

There is a country in the world where the great revolution 
which I am speaking of seems nearly to have reached its 
natural limits; it has been effected with ease and simplicity, 
say rather that this country has attained the consequences of 
the democratic revolution which we are undergoing, without 
having experienced the revolution itself. 

The emigrants who fixed themselves on the shores of 
America in the beginning of the seventeenth century, severed 
the democratic principle from all the principles which re¬ 
pressed it in the old communities of Europe, and trans¬ 
planted it unalloyed to the New World. It has there been 
allowed to spread in perfect freedom, and to put forth its con¬ 
sequences in the laws by influencing the manners of the 
country. 




12 


INTRODUCTION- 


It appears to me beyond a doubt, that s«x)ner or later wo 
shall arrive, like the Americans, at an almost complete 
equality of conditions. But I do not conclude from this, that 
we shall ever be necessarily led to draw the same political 
consequences which the Americans have derived from a 
similar social organization. I am far from supposing that 
they have chosen the only form of government which a 
democracy may adopt; but the identity of the efficient cause 
of laws and manners in the two countries is sufficient to 
account for the immense interest we have in becoming 
acquainted with its effects in each of them. 

It is not, then, merely to satisfy a legitimate curiosity that 
I have examined America; my wish has been to find instruct 
tion by which we may ourselves profit. Whoever should 
imagine that I have intended to write a panegyric would be 
strangely mistaken, and on reading this book, he will per¬ 
ceive that such was not my design: nor has it been my 
object to advocate any form of government in particular, for 
I am of opinion that absolute excellence is rarely to be found 
in any legislation ; I have not even affected to discuss whe¬ 
ther the social revolution, which I believe to be irresistible, 
is advantageous or prejudicial to mankind ; I have acknow¬ 
ledged this revolution as a fact already accomplished or on 
the eve of its accomplishment; and I have selected the 
nation, from among those which have undergone it, in which 
its development has been the most peaceful and the most 
complete, in order to discern its natural consequences, and, 
if it be possible, to distinguish the means by which it may be 
rendered profitable. I confess that in America I saw more 
than America ; I sought the image of democracy itself, with 
its inclinations, its character, its prejudices, and its passions, 
in order to learn what we have to fear or to hope from its 
progress. 

In the first part of this work I have attempted, to show the 
tendency given to the laws by the democracy of America, 
which is abandoned almost without restraint to its instinctive 
propensities 5 and to exhibit the course it prescribes to the 
government, and the influence it exercises on affairs. I 
have sought to discover the evils and the advantages which 
it produces. I have examined the precautions used by the 
Americans to direct it, as well as those which they have not 
adopted, and I have undertaken to point out the causes which 
enable it to govern society. 

It was my intention to depict, in a second part, the influ¬ 
ence which the equality of conditions and the rule of de- 






INTRODtJCTlOBr. 


13 


I mocracy exercise on the civil society, the habits, the ideas, 

! and the manners of the Americans; I begin, however, to 

'■ feel less ardor for the accomplishment of this project, since 

the excellent Work of my friend and travelling companion 
M. de Beaumont has been given to the world.* I do not 
know W'hether I have succeeded in making known what I 
ji saw in America, but I am certain that such has been my 

I sincere desire, and that I have never, knowingly, moulded 

facts to ideas, instead of ideas to facts, 
t Whenever a point could be established by the aid of writ- 
! ten documents, I have had recourse to the original text, and 
to the most authentic and approved works.'f I have cited 
my authorities in the notes, and any one may refer to them. 
Whenever an opinion, a political custom, or a remark on the 
manners of the country was concerned, I endeavored to 
consult the most enlightened men I met with. If the point in 
question was important or doubtful, I was not satisfied with 
one testimony, but I formed my opinion on the evidence of 
, several witnesses. Here the reader must necessarily believe 
me upon my word, I could frequently have quoted names 
which are either known to him, or which deserve to be so, 
in proof of what I advance; but I have carefully abstained 
' from this practice. A stranger frequently hears important 
I truths at the fireside of his host, which the latter would per- 
j haps conceal even from the ear of friendship ; he consoles 

! himself with his guest, for the silence to which he is re¬ 

stricted, and the shortness of the traveller’s stay takes away 
I all fear of his indiscretion. 1 carefully noted every con- 

I versation of this nature as soon as it occurred, but these 

I notes will never leave my writing-case ; I had rather injure 
the success of my statements than add my name to the list 
of those strangers who repay the generous hospitality they 
have received by subsequent chagrin and annoyance. 

I am aware that, notwithstanding my care, nothing 

* This work is entitled, Marie, ou I’Esclavage aiix Etats-Unis. 
f Legislative and administrative documents have been furnished me 
with a degree of politeness which I shall always remember with grati¬ 
tude. Among the American functionaries who thus favored my in¬ 
quiries I am proud to name Mr. Edward Livingston, then Secretary 
of State and late American minister at Paris. During my stay at the 
session of Congress, Mr. Livingston was kind enough to furnish me 
with the greater part of the documents I possess relative to the federal 
government. Mr. Livingston is one of those rare individuals whom 
one loves, respects, and admires, from their writings, and to whom one 
is happy to incur the debt of gratitude on further acquaintance. 




14 


INTRODUCTION. 


will be easier than to criticise this book, if any one ever 
chooses to criticise it. 

Those readers who may examine it closely will discover 
the fundamental idea which connects the several parts to¬ 
gether. But the diversity of the subjects I have had to treat 
is exceedingly great, and it will not be difficult to oppose an 
isolated fact to the body of facts which I quote, or an isolated 
idea to the body of ideas I put forth. I hope to be read in 
the spirit which has guided my labors, and that my book 
may be judged by the general impression it leaves, as I have 
formed my own judgment not on any single reason, but upon 
the mass of evidence. 

It must not be forgotten that the author who wishes to be 
understood is obliged to push all his ideas to their utmost 
theoretical consequences, and often to the verge of what is 
false or impracticable; for if it be necessary sometimes to 
quit the rules of logic in active life, such is not the case in 
discourse, and a man finds that almost as many difficulties 
spring from inconsistency of language, as usually arise from 
consistency of conduct. 

I conclude by pointing out myself what many readers 
will consider the principal defect of the work. This book 
is written to favor no particular views, and in composing it 
I have entertained no design of serving or attacking any 
party: I have undertaken not to see differently, but to look 
farther than parties, and while they are busied for the mor¬ 
row, I have turned my ihoughts to the future. 




DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


FIRST PART. 


CHAPTER I. 

EXTERIOR FORM OF NORTH AMERICA. 


North America divided into two vast regions, one inclining toward the 
Pole, the other toward the Equator.—Valley of the Mississippi.— 
Traces of the Revolutions of the Globe.—Shore of the Atlantic 
Ocean, where the English Colonies were founded.—Difference in the 
Appearance of North and of South America at the Time of their 
Discovery.—Forests of North America.—Prairies.—Wandering 
Tribes of Natives.—Their outward Appearance, Manners, and Lan¬ 
guage.—Traces of an Unknown People. 


North America presents in its external form certain general 
features, which it is easy to discriminate at the first glance. 

A sort of methodical order seems to have regulated the 
separation of land and water, mountains and valleys. A 
simple but grand arrangement is discoverable amid the con¬ 
fusion of objects and the prodigious variety of scenes. 

This continent is divided, almost equally, into two vast 
regions, one of which is bounded, on the north by the arctic 
pole, and by the two great oceans on the east and west. It 
stretches toward the south, forming a triangle, whose irregu¬ 
lar sides meet at length below the great lakes of Canada. 

The second region begins where the other terminates, and 
includes all the remainder of the continent. 

The one slopes gently toward the pole, the other toward 
the equator. 

The territory comprehended in the first regions descends 
toward the north with so imperceptible a slope that it may 
almost be said to form a level plain. Within the bounds of 
this immense tract of country there are neither high moun- 






16 


EXTERIOR FORM OF 


tains nor deep valleys. Streams meander through it irregu¬ 
larly ; great rivers mix their currents, separate and meet 
again, disperse and form vast marshes, losing all trace of their 
channels in the labyrinth of waters they have themselves 
created ; and thus, at length, after innumerable windings, 
fall into the polar seas. The great lakes which bound this 
first region are not walled in, like most of those in the Old 
World, between hills and rocks. Their banks are flat, and 
rise but a few feet above the level of their waters ; each of 
them thus forming a vast bowl filled to the brim. The 
slightest change in the structure of the globe would cause 
their waters to rush either toward the pole or to the tropical 
sea. 

The second region is more varied on its surface, and better 
suited for the habitation of man. Two long chains of moun¬ 
tains divide it from one extreme to the other ; the Allegany 
ridge takes the form of the shores of the Atlantic ocean ; the 
other is parallel with the Pacific. 

The space which lies between these two chains of moun¬ 
tains contains 1,341,649 square miles.* Its surface is there¬ 
fore about six times as great as that of France. 

This vast territory, however, forms a single valley, one 
side of which descends gradually from the rounded summits 
of the Alleganies, while the other rises in an uninterrupted 
course toward the tops of the Rocky mountains. 

At the bottom of the valley flows an immense river, into 
which the various streams issuing from the mountains fall 
from all parts. In memory of their native land, the French 
formerly called this the river St. Louis. The Indians, in 
their pompous language, have named it the Father of Waters, 
or the Mississippi. 

The Mississippi takes its source above the limit of the two 
great regions of which 1 have spoken, not far from the highest 
point of the table-land where they unite. Near the same 
spot rises another river,f which empties itself into the polar 
seas. The course of the Mississippi is at first devious : it 
winds several times toward the north, w'hence it rose ; and, 
at length, after having been delayed in lakes and marshes, it 
flows slowly onward to the south. 

Sometimes quietly gliding along the argillaceous bed which 
nature has assigned to it; sometimes sw'ollen by storms, the 
Mississippi waters 2,500 miles in its course.J At the dis- 

* Darby’s “ View of the United States.” f Mackenzie’s river. 

X Warden’s “ Description of the United States.” 


NORTH AMERICA. 


17 


lance of 1,364 miles from its mouth this river attains an 
average depth of fifteen feet; and it is navigated by vessels 
of 300 tons burden for a course of nearly 500 miles. Fifty- 
seven large navigable rivers contribute to swell the waters 
of the Mississippi; among others the Missouri, which tra¬ 
verses a space of 2,500 miles ; the Arkansas of 1,300 miles ; 
the Red river 1,000 miles ; four whose course is from 800 to 
1000 miles in length, viz., the Illinois, the St. Peter’s, the St. 
Francis, and the Moingona ; besides a countless number of 
rivulets which unite from all parts their tributary streams. 

The valley which is watered by the Mississippi seems 
formed to be the bed of this mighty river, which like a god 
of antiquity dispenses both good and evil in its course. On 
the shores of the stream nature displays an inexhaustible 
fertility ; in proportion as you recede from its banks, the 
powers of vegetation languish, the soil becomes poor, and 
the plants that survive have a sickly growth. Nowhere 
have the great convulsions of the globe left more evident 
traces than in the valley of the Mississippi: the whole aspect 
of the country shows the powerful effects of water, both by 
its fertility and by its barrenness. The waters of the prime¬ 
val ocean accumulated enormous beds of vegetable mould in 
the valley, which they levelled as they retired. Upon the 
right shore of the river are seen immense plains, as smooth 
as if the husbandman had passed over them with his roller. 
As you approach the mountains, the soil becomes more and 
I more unequal and sterile ; the ground is, as it were, pierced 
in a thousand places by primitive rocks, which appear like 
the bones of a skeleton whose flesh is partly consumed. The 
, surface of the earth is covered with a granitic sand, and 
I huge irregular masses of stone, among which a few plants 
force their growth, and give the appearance of a green field 
covered with the ruins of a vast edifice. These stones and 
this sand discover, on examination, a perfect analogy with 
i those which compose the arid and broken summits of the 
I Rocky mountains. The flood of waters which washed the 
j soil to the bottom of the valley, afterward carried away por- 
! tions of the rocks themselves ; and these, dashed and bruised 
I against the neighboring cliffs, were left scattered like wrecks 
at their feet.* 

The valley of the Mississippi is, upon the whole, the most ^ 
magnificent dwelling-place prepared by God for man’s abode ; ^ 
and yet it may be said that at present it is but a mighty 
desert. 

*• See Appendix A. 

3* 



•18 


EXTERIOR FORM OF 


On the eastern side of the Alleganies, between the base of 
these mountains and the Atlantic ocean, lies a long ridge of 
rocks and sand, which the sea appears to have left behind as 
it retired. The mean breadth of this territory does not ex¬ 
ceed one hundred miles ; but it is about nine hundred miles 
in length. This part of the x4.merican continent has a soil 
which offers every obstacle to the husbandman, and its vege¬ 
tation is scanty and unvaried. 

Upon this inhospitable coast the first united efforts of human 
industry were made. This tongue of arid land was the 
cradle of those English colonies which were destined one 
day to become the United States of America. The centre 
of power still remains there ; while in the backward States 
the true elements of the great people, to whom the future 
control of the continent belongs, are secretly springing up. 

When the Europeans first landed on the shores of tlie An¬ 
tilles, and afterwards on the coast of South America, they 
thought themselves transported into those fabulous regions of 
which poets had sung. The sea sparkled with phosphoric 
light, and the extraordinary transparency of its waters dis¬ 
covered to the view of the navigator all that had hitherto 
been hidden in the deep abyss.* Here and there appeared 
little islands perfumed with odoriferous plants, and resem¬ 
bling baskets of flowers, floating on the tranquil surface of 
the ocean. Every object which met the sight, in this en¬ 
chanting region, seemed prepared to satisfy the wants, or 
contribute to the pleasures of man. Almost all the trees 
were loaded with nourishing fruits, and those which were 
useless as food, delighted the eye by the brilliancy and va¬ 
riety of their colors. In groves of fragrant lemon-trees, wild 
figs, flowering myrtles, acacias, and oleanders, which were 
hung with festoons of various climbing-plants, covered with 
flowers, a multitude of birds unknown in Europe displayed 
their bright plumage, glittering with purple and azure, and 
mingled their warbling in the harmony of a world teeming 
with life and motion.f 

Underneath this brilliant exterior death was concealed. 
The air of these climates had so enervating an influence 

* Malte Brun tells us (vol. v., p. 726) that the water of the Carib¬ 
bean sea is so transparent, that corals and fish are discernible at a depth 
of sixty fathoms. The ship seemed to float in the air, the navigator 
became giddy as his eye penetrated through the crystal flood, and 
beheld submarine gardens, or beds of shells, or gilded fishes gliding 
among tufts and thickets of seaweed. 

t See Appendix B. 



KORTH AMERICA. 


19 


that man, completely absorbed by the present enjoyment, 
was rendered regardless of the future. 

: North America appeared under a very different aspect; 

. there, everything was grave, serious, and solemn ; it seemed 
I created to be the domain of intelligence, as the south was 
that of sensual delight. A turbulent and foggy ocean wash- 
! ed its shores. It was girded round by a belt of granitic 
I rocks, or by wide plains of sand. The foliage of its woods 
I was dark and gloomy; for they were composed of firs, 

I larches, evergreen oaks, wild olive-trees, and laurels, 
i Beyond this outer belt lay the thick shades of the central 
I forests, where the largest trees which are produced in the 
two hemispheres grow side by side. The plane, the catalpa, 
the sugar-maple, and the Virginian poplar, mingled their 
branches with those of the oak, the beech, and the lime. ^ 

In these, as in the forests of the Old World, destruction 
was perpetually going on. The ruins of vegetation 'were 
heaped upon each other ; but there was no laboring hand to 
remove them, and their decay was not rapid enough to make 
room for the continual work of reproduction. Climbing- 
plants, grasses and other herbs, forced their way through 
the moss of dying trees; they crept along their bending 
trunks, found nourishment in their dusty cavities, and a pas¬ 
sage beneath the lifeless bark. Thus decay gave its assist¬ 
ance to life, and their respective productions were mingled 
together. The depths of these forests were gloomy and ob¬ 
scure, and a thousand rivulets, undirected in their course by 
human industry, preserved in them a constant moisture. It 
; was rare to meet with flowers, wild fruits, or birds, beneath 
their shades. The fall of a tree overthrown by age, the 
rushing torrent of a cataract, the lowing of the buffalo, and 
the howling of the wind, were the only sounds which broke 
the silence of nature. 

To the east of the great river the woods almost disap¬ 
peared ; in their stead were seen prairies of immense ex¬ 
tent. Whether nature in her infinite variety had denied the 
germes of trees to these fertile plains, or whether they had 
once been covered with forests, subsequently destroyed by 
the hand of man, is a question which neither tradition nor 
scientific research has been able to resolve. 

These immense deserts were not, however, devoid of hu¬ 
man inhabitants. Some wandering tribes had been for ages 
scattered among the forest shades or the green pastures of 
the prairie. From the mouth of the St. Lawrence to the 
Delta of the Mississippi, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific 





20 


EXTERIOR FORM OF 


ocean, these savages possessed certain points of resemblance 
which bore witness of their common origin: but at the same 
time they differed from all other known races of men :* they 
were neither white like the Europeans, nor yellow like most 
of the Asiatics, nor black like the negroes. Their skin was 
reddish brown, their hair long and shining, their lips thin, 
and their cheek-bones very prominent. The languages 
spoken by the North American tribes were various as far as 
regarded their words, but they were subject to the same 
grammatical rules. Those rules differed in several points 
from such as had been observed to govern the origin of 
language. 

The idiom of the Americans seemed to be the product of 
new combinations, and bespoke an effort of the understand¬ 
ing, of which the Indians of our days would be incapable.f 

The social state of these tribes differed also in many re¬ 
spects from all that was seen in the Old World. They seemed 
to have multiplied freely in the midst of their deserts, with¬ 
out coming in contact with other races more civilized than 
their own. 

Accordingly, they exhibited none of those indistinct, in¬ 
coherent notions of right and wrong, none of that deep cor¬ 
ruption of manners that is usually joined with ignorance and 
rudeness among nations which, after advancing to civilisa¬ 
tion, have relapsed into a state of barbarism. The Indian 
was indebted to no one but himself; his virtues, his vices, 
and his prejudices, were his own work ; he had grown up in 
the wild independence of his nature. 

If, in polished countries, the lowest of the people are rude 
and uncivil, it is not merely because they are poor and ig¬ 
norant, but that, being so, they are in daily contact with rich 
and enlightened men. The sight of their own hard lot and 
of their weakness, which are daily contrasted with the hap¬ 
piness and power of some of their fellow creatures, excites 


* With the progress of discovery, some resemblance has been found 
to exist between the physical conformation, the language, and the 
habits of the Indians of North America, and those of the Tongous, 
Mantchous, Moguls, Tartars, and other wandering tribes of Asia. 
The land occupied by these tribes is not very distant from Behring’s 
strait; which allows of the supposition, that at a remote period they 
gave inhabitants to the desert continent of America. But this is a 
point which has not yet been clearly elucidated by science. See 
Make Brun, vol. v.; the works of Humboldt; Fischer, “ Conjecture 
suT I’Origine des AmericainsAdair, “ History of the American 
Indians.” 

t See Appendix C. 




NORTH AMERICA. 


21 


in their hearts at the same time the sentiments of anger and 
of fear: the consciousness of their inferiority and of their 
dependence irritates while it humiliates them. This state 
of mind displays itself in their manners and language; 
they are at once insolent and servile. The truth of this is 
easily proved by observation; the people are more rude in 
aristocratic countries than elsewhere ; in opulent cities than 
in rural districts. In those places where the rich and power¬ 
ful are assembled together, the weak and the indigent feel 
themselves oppressed by their inferior condition. Unable to 
perceive a single chance of regaining their equality, they 
give up to despair, and allow themselves to fall below the 
dignity of human nature. 

This unfortunate effect of the disparity of conditions is 
not observable in savage life; the Indians, although they 
are ignorant and poor, are equal and free. 

At the period when Europeans first came among them, 
the natives of North America were ignorant of the value 
of riches, and indifferent to the enjoyments which civilized 
man procures to himself by their means. Nevertheless, 
there was nothing coarse in their demeanor ; they practised 
an habitual reserve, and a kind of aristocratic politeness. 

Mild and liospitahle when at peace, though merciless in 
war beyond any known degree of human ferocity, the In¬ 
dian would expose himself to die of hunger in order to suc¬ 
cor the stranger who asked admittance by night at the door 
of his hut—yet he could tear in pieces with his hands the 
still quivering limbs of his prisoner. The famous republics 
of antiquity never gave examples of more unshaken cou¬ 
rage, more haughty spirits, or more intractable love of inde¬ 
pendence, than were hidden in former times among the wild 
forests of the New World.* X^ie Europeans produced no 
great impression when they landed upon the shores of North 
America : their presence engendered neither envy nor fear. 
What influence could they possess over such men as we 
have described ? The Indian could live without wants, suf¬ 
fer without complaint, and pour out his death-song at the 

* We learn from President Jefferson’s “Notes upon Virginia,” p. 
148, that among the Iroquois, when attacked by a superior force, aged 
men refused to fly, or to survive the destruction of their country; 
and they braved death like the ancient Romans when their capital 
was sacked by the Gauls, Further on, p. 150, he tells us, that there 
is no example of an Indian, who, having fallen into the hands of his 
enemies, begged for his life; on the contrary, the captive sought to 
obtain death at the hands of his conquerors by the use of insult and 
provocation. 


22 


EXTERIOR FORM OF 


stake.* Like all the other members of the great human 
family, these savages believed in the existence of a better 
world, and adored, under different names, God, the Creator 
of the universe. Their notions on the great intellectual 
truths were, in general, simple and philosophical.f 

Although we have here traced the character of a primi¬ 
tive people, yet it cannot be doubted that another people, 
more civilized and more advanced in all respects, had pre¬ 
ceded it in the same regions. 

An obscure tradition, which prevailed among the Indians 
to the north of the Atlantic, inform^s us that these very tribes 
formerly dwelt on the west side of the Mississippi. Along 
the banks of the Ohio, and throughout the central valley, 
there are frequently found, at this day, tumuli raised by the 
hands of men. On exploring these heaps of earth to their 
centre, it is usual to meet with human bones, strange instru¬ 
ments, arms and utensils of all kinds, made of a metal, or 
destined for purposes, unknown to the present race. 

The Indians of our time are unable to give any informa¬ 
tion relative to the history of this unknowm people. Neither 
did those who lived three hundred years ago, when America 
was first discovered, leave any accounts from which even 
an hypothesis could be formed. Tradition—that perishable, 
yet ever-renewed monument of the pristine world—throws 
no light upon the subject. It is an undoubted fact, however, 
that in this part of the globe thousands of our fellow-beings 
had lived. When they came hither, what was their origin, 
their destiny, their history, and how they perished, no one 
can tell. 

How strange does it appear that nations have existed, and 
afterward so completely disappeared from the earth, that the 
remembrance of their very name is effaced : their languages 
are lost; their glory is vanished like a sound without an echo ; 
but perhaps there is not one which has not left behind it a 
tomb in memory of its passage. The most durable monu¬ 
ment of human labor is that which recalls the wretchedness 
and nothingness of man. 

Although the vast country which we have been describing 

* See “ Histoire de la Louisiane,” by Lepage Dupratz ; Charlevoix, 
“ Histoire de la Nouvelle France;” “ Lettres du Rev. G. Hecwelder;” 
“ Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,” v. i.; Jeffer¬ 
son’s “Notes on Virginia,” pp. 135-190. What is said by Jefferson 
is of especial weight, on account of the personal merit of the writer, 
and of the matter-of-fact age in which he lived. 

t See Appendix D. 


NORTH AP^ERICA. 


23 


was inhabited by many indigenous tribes, it may justly be 
said, at the time of its discovery by Europeans, to have form¬ 
ed one great desert. The Indians occupied, without possess¬ 
ing it. It is by agricultural labor that man appropriates the 
soil, and the early inhabitants of North America lived by the 
produce of the chase. Their implacable prejudices, their 
uncontrolled passions, their vices, and still more, perhaps, 
their savage virtues, consigned them to inevitable destruc¬ 
tion. The ruin of these nations began from the day when 
Europeans landed on their shores: it has proceeded ever 
since, and we are now seeing the completion of it. They seem¬ 
ed to have been placed by Providence amid the riches of the 
New World to enjoy them- for a season, and then surrender 
them. Those coasts, so admirably adapted for commerce 
and industry ; those wide and deep rivers ; that inexhaustible 
valley of the Mississippi; the whole continent, in short, 
seemed prepared to be the abode of a great nation, yet 
unborn. 

In that land the great experiment was to be made by civil¬ 
ized man, of the attempt to construct society upon a new 
basis; and it was there, for the first time, that theories hith¬ 
erto unknown, or deemed impracticable, were to exhibit a 
spectacle for which the world had not been prepared by the 
history of the past. 


CHAPTER II. 

ORIGIN OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS AND ITS IMPORTANCE, IN 
RELATION TO THEIR FUTURE CONDITION. 


Utility of knowing the Origin of Nations in order to understand their 
social Condition and their Laws.—America the only Country in 
which the Starting-Point of a great People has been clearly observa¬ 
ble,—In what respects all who emigrated to British America were 
similar.—In what they differed.—Remark applicable to all the Euro¬ 
peans who established themselves on the shores of the New World. 
—Colonization of Virginia.—Colonization of New England.—Origi¬ 
nal Character of the first inhabitants of New England.—Their Arri¬ 
val.—Their first Laws.—Their social Contract.—Penal Code borrow¬ 
ed from the Hebrew Legislation.—Religious Fervor.—Republican 
Spirit,—Intimate Union of the Spirit of Religion with the Spirit of 
Liberty. 

After the birth of a human being, his early years are ob¬ 
scurely spent ii) the toils or pleasures of childhood. As he. 



24 


ORIGIN OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS 


grows up, the world receives him, when his manhood begins, 
and he enters into contact with his fellows. He is then 
studied for the first time, and it is imagined that the germe of 
the vices and the virtues of his maturer years is then formed. 

This, if I am not mistaken, is a great error. We must 
begin higher up; we must watch the infant in his mother’s 
arms ; we must see the first images which the external world 
casts upon the dark mirror of his mind ; the first occurrences 
which he beholds ; we must hear the first words which 
awaken the sleeping powers of thought, and stand by his 
earliest efforts, if we would understand the prejudices, the 
habits, and the passions, which will rule his life. The entire 
man is, so to speak, to be seen in the cradle of the child. 

The growth of nations presents something analogous to 
this; they all bear some marks of their origin; and the cir¬ 
cumstances which accompanied their birth and contributed to 
their rise, affect the whole term of their being. 

If we were able to go back to the elements of states, and 
to examine the oldest monuments of their history, I doubt not 
that we should discover the primary cause of the prejudices, 
the habits, the ruling passions, and in short of all that consti¬ 
tutes what is called the national character: we should then 
find the explanation of certain customs which now seem at 
variance with prevailing manners, of such laws as conflict 
with established principles, and of such incoherent opinions 
as are here and there to be met with in society, like those 
fragments of broken chains which we sometimes see hanging 
from the vault of an edifice, and supporting nothing. This 
might explain the destinies of certain nations which seem 
borne along by an unknown force to ends of which they 
themselves are ignorant. But hitherto facts have been want¬ 
ing to researches of this kind : the spirit of inquiry has only 
come upon communities in their latter days; and when they 
at length turned their attention to contemplate their origin, 
time had already obscured it, or ignorance and pride adorned 
it with truth-concealing fables. 

America is the only country in which it has been possible 
to study the natural and tranquil growth of society, and 
where the influence exercised on the future condition of 
states by their origin is clearly distinguishable. 

At the period when the people of Europe landed in the 
New World, their national characteristics were already 
completely formed ; each of* them had a physiognomy of its 
own ; and as they had already attained that stage of civilisa¬ 
tion at which men are led to study themselves, they have 


AND ITS IMPORTANCE. 


25 


transmitted to us a faithful picture of their opinions, their 
manners, and their laws. The men of the sixteenth century- 
are almost as well known to us as our contemporaries. Ame¬ 
rica consequently exhibits in the broad light of day the phe¬ 
nomena which the ignorance or rudeness of earlier ages con¬ 
ceals from our researches. Near enough to the time when 
the states of America were founded to be accurately acquaint¬ 
ed with their elements, and sufficiently removed from that 
period to judge of some of their results. The men of our 
own day seem destined to see farther than their predecessors 
into the series of human events. Providence has given us a 
torch which our forefathers did not possess, and has allowed 
us to discern fundamental causes in the history of the world 
which the obscurity of the past concealed from them. 

If we carefully examine the social and political state of 
America, after having studied its history, we shall remain 
perfectly convinced that not an opinion, not a custom, not a 
law, I may even say not an event, is upon record which the 
origin of that people will not explain. The readers of this 
book will find the germe of all that is to follow in the present 
chapter, and the key to almost the whole work. 

The emigrants who came at different periods to occupy the 
territory now covered by the American Union, differed from 
each other in many respects ; their aim was not the same, 
and they governed themselves on different principles. 

These men had, however, certain features in common, and 
they were all placed in an analogous situation. The tie of 
language is perhaps the strongest and most durable that can 
unite mankind. All the emigrants spoke the same tongue ; 
they were all offsets from the same people. Born in a coun¬ 
try which had been agitated for centuries by the struggles of 
faction, and in which all parties had been obliged in their turn 
to place themselves under the protection of the laws, 
their political education had been perfected in this rude 
school, and they were more conversant with the notions of 
right, and the principles of true freedom, than the greater 
part of their European contemporaries. At the period of the 
first emigrations, the parish system, that fruitful germe of free 
institutions, was deeply rooted in the habits of the English ; 
and with it the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people had 
been introduced even into the bosom of the monarchy of the 
house of Tudor. 

The religious quarrels which have agitated the Christian 
world were then rife. England had plunged into the new 
order of things with headlong vehemence. The character of 

4 


26 


ORIGIN OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS 


its inhabitants, which had always been sedate and reflecting, 
became argumentative and austere. General information had 
been increased by intellectual debate, and the mind had re¬ 
ceived a deeper cultivation. While religion was the topic of 
discussion, the morals of the people were reformed. All these 
national features are more or less discoverable in the phisiog- 
nomy of those adventurers who came to seek a new home on 
the opposite shores of the Atlantic. 

Another remark, to which we shall hereafter have occasion 
to recur, is applicable not only to the English, but to the 
French, the Spaniards, and all the Europeans who succes¬ 
sively established themselves in the New World. All these 
European colonies contained the elements, if not the develop¬ 
ment of a complete democracy. Two causes led to this re¬ 
sult. It may safely be advanced, that on leaving the mother- 
country the emigrants had in general no notion of superiority 
over one another. The happy and the powerful do not go 
into exile, and there are no surer guarantees of equality 
among men than poverty and misfortune. It happened, how¬ 
ever, on several occasions that persons of rank were driven 
•to America by political and religious quarrels. Laws were 
made to establish a gradation of ranks; but it was soon 
found that the soil of America was entirely opposed to a ter¬ 
ritorial aristocracy. To bring that refractory land into cul¬ 
tivation, the constant and interested exertions of the owner 
himself were necessary ; and when the ground was prepared, 
its produce was found to be insufficient to enrich a master and 
a farmer at the same time. The land was then naturally 
broken up into small portions, which the proprietor cultivated 
for himself. Land is the basis of an aristocracy, which 
clings to the soil that supports it; for it is not by privileges 
alone, nor by birth, but by landed property handed down from 
generation to generation, that an aristocracy is constituted. 
A nation may present immense fortunes and extreme wretch¬ 
edness ; but unless those fortunes are territorial, there is no 
aristocracy, but simply the class of the rich and that of the 
poor. 

All the British colonies had then a great degree of simi¬ 
larity at the epoch of their settlement. All of them, from 
their first beginning, seemed destined to behold the growth, 
not of the aristocratic liberty of their mother-country, but of 
that freedom of the middle and lower orders of which the 
history of the world has as yet furnished no complete ex¬ 
ample. 

In this general uniformity several striking differences weye 


AND ITS IMPORTANCE. 


27 


however discernible, which it is necessary to point out. Two 
branches may be distinguished in the Anglo-American family, 
which have hitherto grown up without entirely commingling ; 
the one in the south, the other in the north. 

Virginia received the first English colony ; the emigrants 
took possession of it in 1607. The idea that mines of gold 
and silver are the sources of national wealth, was at that time 
singularly prevalent in Europe; a fatal delusion, which has 
done more to impoverish the nations which adopted it, and 
has cost more lives in America, than the united influence of 
war and bad laws. The men sent to Virginia* * * § were seekers 
of gold, adventurers without resources and without charac¬ 
ter, whose turbulent and restless spirits endangered the 
infant colony,f and rendered its progress uncertain. The 
artisans and agriculturists arrived afterward ; and although 
they were a more moral and orderly race of men, they were 
in nowise above the level of the inferior classes in England. J 
No lofty conceptions, no intellectual system directed the 
foundation of these new settlements. The colony was 
scarcely established when slavery was introduced,§ and this 
was the main circumstance which has exercised so prodigious 
an influence on the character, the laws, and all the future 
prospects of the south. 

Slavery, as we shall afterward show, dishonors labor; it 
introduces idleness into .society, and, with idleness, ignorance 
and pride, luxury and distress. It enervates the powers of 
the mind, and benumbs the activity of man. The influence 

* The charter granted by the crown of England, in 1609, stipulated, 
among other conditions, that the adventurers should pay to the crown 
a fifth of the produce of all gold and silver mines. See Marshall’s 
“ Life of Washington,” vol i., pp. 18-66. 

t A large portion of the adventurers, says Stith (History of Vir¬ 
ginia), were unprincipled young men of family, whom their parents 
were glad to ship off', discharged servants, fraudulent bankrupts, or 
debauchees: and others of the same class, people more apt to pillage 
and destroy than to assist the settlement, were the seditious chiefs who 
easily led this band into every kind of extravagance and excess. See 
for the history of Virginia the following works :— 

“ History of Virginia, from the first Settlements in the year 1624,” 
by Smith. 

* “ History of Virginia,” by William Stith. 

“ History of Virginia, from the earliest Period,” by Beverley. 

I It was not till some time later that a certain number of rich Eng¬ 
lish capitalists came to fix themselves in the colony. 

§ Slavery was introduced about the year 1620, by a Dutch vessel, 
which landed twenty negroes on the banks of the river James. See 
Chalmer. 



28 ORIGIN OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS 

of slavery, united to the English character, explains the 
manners and the social condition of the southern states. 

In the north, the same English foundation was modified by 
the most opposite shades of character; and here I may be 
allowed to enter into some details. The two or three main 
ideas which constitute the basis of the social theory of the 
United States, were first combined in the northern British 
colonies, more generally denominated the states of New 
England.* The principles of New England spread at first 
to the neighboring states; they then passed successively to 
the more distant ones; and at length they embued the whole 
confederation. They now extend their influence beyond its 
limits over the whole American world. The civilisation of 
New England has been like a beacon lit upon a hill, which, 
after it has diffused its warmth around, tinges the distant 
horizon with its glow. 

The foundation of New England was a novel spectacle, 
and all the circumstances attending it were singular and 
original. The large majority of colonies have been first in¬ 
habited either by men without education and witliout resources, 
driven by their poverty and their misconduct from the land 
which gave them birth, or by speculators and adventurers 
greedy of gain. Some settlements cannot even boast so 
honorable an origin : St. Domingo was founded by bucca¬ 
neers ; and, at the present day, the criminal courts of Eng¬ 
land supply the population of Australia. 

The settlers who established themselves on the shores of 
New England all belonged to the more independent classes 
of their native country. Their union oh the soil of America 
at once presented the singular phenomenon of a society con¬ 
taining neither lords nor common people, neither rich nor poor. 
These men possessed, in proportion to their number, a greater 
mass of intelligence than is to be found in any European 
nation of our own time. All, without a single exception, had 
received a good education, and m.any of them were known in 
Europe for their talents and their acquirements. The other 
colonies had been founded by adventurers without family; 
the emigrants of New England brought with them the best 
elements of order and morality, they landed in the desert 
accompanied by their wives and children. But what most 
especially distinguished them was the aim of their under- 


* The states of New England are those situatea to the east of the 
Hudson; they are now six in number: 1. Connecticut; 2. Rhode 
Island; 3. Massachusetts ; 4. Vermont; 5. New Hampshire; G. Maine. 


AND ITS IMPORTANCE. 


29 


taking. They had not been obliged by necessity to leave 
their country, the social position they abandoned was one to 
be regretted, and their means of subsistence were certain. 
Nor did they cross the Atlantic to improve their situation, or 
to increase their wealth ; the call which summoned them 
from the comforts of their homes was purely intellectual; 
and in facing the inevitable sufferings of exile, their object 
was the triumph of an idea. 

The emigrants, or, as they deservedly styled themselves, 
the pilgrims, belonged to that English sect, the austerity of 
whose principles had acquired for them the name of puritans. 
Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but it cor¬ 
responded in many points with the most absolute democratic 
and republican theories. It was this tendency which had 
aroused its most dangerous adversaries. Persecuted by the 
government of the mother-country, and disgusted by the 
habits of a society opposed to the rigor of their own princi- * 
pies, the puritans went forth to seek some rude and unfre¬ 
quented part of the world, where they could live according 
to their own opinions, and worship God in freedom. 

A few quotations will throw more light upon the spirit of 
these pious adventurers than all we can say of them. 
Nathaniel Morton,* the historian of the first years of the set¬ 
tlement, thus opens his subject:— 

“ Gentle Reader : I have for some length of time looked 
upon it as a duty incumbent, especially on the immediate 
successors of those that have had so large experience of those 
many memorable and signal demonstrations of God’s good¬ 
ness, viz., the first beginning of this plantation in New Eng¬ 
land, to commit to writing his gracious dispensations on that 
behalf; having so many inducements thereunto, not only 
otherwise, but so plentifully in the Sacred Scriptures : that so, 
what we have seen, and what our fathers have told us (Psalm 
Ixxviii., 3, 4), we may not hide from our children, showing 
to the generations to come the praises of the Lord; that 
especially the seed of Abraham his servant, and the children 
of Jacob his chosen (Psalm cv., 5, 6), may remember his 
marvellous works in the beginning and progress of the plant¬ 
ing of New England, his wonders and the judgments of his 
mouth; how that God brought a vine into this wilderness; 
that he cast out the heathen and planted it; that he made 

*“New England’s Memorial,” p. 13. Boston, 1826. See also 
“ Hutchinson’s History,” vol. ii., p. 440, 

4 * 


30 


ORIGIN OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS 


room for it, and caused it to take deep root; and it filled the 
land (Psalm Ixxx., 8, 9). And not onely so, but also that 
he hath guided his people by his strength to his holy habita¬ 
tion, and planted them in the mountain of his inheritance in 
respect of precious gospel enjoyments: and that as especially 
God may have the glory of all unto whom it is most due; so 
also some rays of glory may reach the names of those blessed 
saints, that were the main instruments and the beginning of 
this happy enterprise.” 

It is impossible to read this opening paragraph without an 
involuntary feeling of religious awe; it breathes the very 
savor of gospel antiquity. The sincerity of the author 
heightens his power of language. The band, which to his 
eyes was a mere party of adventurers, gone forth to seek 
their fortune beyond the seas, appears to the reader as the 
* germe of a great nation wafted by Providence to a predestined 
shore. 

The author thus continues his narrative of the departure of 
the first pilgrims:— 

“So they left that "goodly and pleasant city, of Leyden, 
which had been their resting-place for above eleven years; 
but they knew that they were pilgrims and strangers here 
below, and looked not much on these things, but lifted up 
their eyes to Heaven, their dearest country, where God hath 
prepared for them a city (Heb. xi., 16), and therein quieted 
their spirits. When they came to Delfs-Haven they found 
the ship and all things ready ; and such of their friends as 
could come with them, followed after them, and sundry came 
from Amsterdam to see them shipt, and to take their leaves 
of them. One night was spent with little sleep with the most, 
but with friendly entertainment and Christian discourse, and 
other real expressions of true Christian love. The next day 
they went on board, and their friends with them, where truly 
doleful was the sight of that sad and mournful parting, to 
hear what sighs and sobs and prayers did sound among 
them ; what tears did gush from every eye, and pithy speeches 
pierced each other’s heart, that sundry of the Dutch strangers 
that stood on the key as spectators could not refrain from 
tears. But the tide (which stays for no man) calling them 
away that were thus loath to depart, their reverend pastor 
falling down on his knees, and they all with him, with wa¬ 
tery cheeks commended them with most fervent prayers unto 
the Lord and his blessing; and then, with mutual embraces 


AND ITS IMPORTANCE. 


31 


and many team, they took their leaves one of another, which 
proved to be the last leave to many of them.” 

The emigrants were about 150 in number, including the 
women and the children. Their object was to plant a colony 
on the shores of the Hudson ; but after having been driven 
about for some time in the Atlantic ocean, they were forced 
to land on that arid coast of New England which is now the 
site of the town of Plymouth. .The rock is still shown on 
which the pilgrims disembarked.* 

“ But before we pass on,” continues our historian, let the 
reader with me make a pause, and seriously consider this 
poor people’s present condition, the more to be raised up to 
admiration of God’s goodness toward them in their preserva¬ 
tion : for being now passed the vast ocean, and a sea of trou¬ 
bles before them in expectation, they had now no friends to 
welcome them, no inns to entertain or refresh them, no 
houses, or much less towns to repair unto to seek for suc¬ 
cor ; and for the season it was winter, and they that know 
the winters of the country know them to be sharp and vio¬ 
lent, subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel 
to known places, much more to search unknown coasts. Be¬ 
sides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilder¬ 
ness, full of wilde beasts, and wilde men ? and what multi¬ 
tudes of them there were, they then knew not: for which way 
soever they turned their eyes (save upward to Heaven) they 
could have but little solace or content in respect of any out¬ 
ward object; for summer being ended, all things stand in 
appearance with a weather-beaten face, and the whole 
country full of woods and thickets represented a wild and 
savage hue ; if they looked behind them, there was the 
mighty ocean which they had passed, and w^as now as a main 
bar or gulph to separate them from all the civil parts of the 
world.” 

It must not be imagined that the piety of the puritans was 
of a merely speculative kind, or that it took no cognizance 
of the course of worldly alfairs. Puritanism, as I have 

* This rock is become an object of veneration in the United States. 
I have seen bits of it carefully preserved in several towns of the Union. 
Does not this sufficiently show that all human power and greatness is 
in the soul of man ? Here is a stone which the feet of a few outcasts 
pressed for an instant, and this stone becomes famous; it is treasured 
by a great nation, its very dust is shared as a relic; and what is become 
of the gateways of a thousand palaces? 


32 


ORIGIN OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS 


already remarked, was scarcely less a political than a reli¬ 
gious doctrine. No sooner had the emigrants landed on the 
barren coast, described by Nathaniel Morton, than their first 
care was to constitute a society, by passing the following 
act :*— 

In the name of God, Amen ! We, whose names are 
underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign lord 
King James, &c., &c., having undertaken for the glory of 
God and advancement of the Christian faith, and the honor 
of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in 
the northern parts of Virginia : do by these presents solemnly 
and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, cove¬ 
nant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, 
for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of 
the ends aforesaid : and by virtue hereof do enact, consti¬ 
tute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, 
constitutions, and officers, from time to time, as shall be 
thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the 
colony : unto which we promise all due submission and 
obedience,” (fec-f 

This happened in 1620, and from that time forward the 
emigration went on. The religious and political passions 
which ravished the British empire during the whole reign of 
Charles I., drove fresh crowds of sectarians every year to 
the shores of America. In England the stronghold of puri- 
tanism was in the middle classes, and it was from the middle 
classes that the majority of the emigrants came. The popu¬ 
lation of New England increased rapidly; and while the 
hierarchy of rank despotically classed the inhabitants of the 
mother-country, the colony continued to present the novel 
spectacle of a community homogeneous in all its parts. A 
democracy, more perfect than any which antiquity had 
dreamed of, started in full size and panoply from the midst 
of an ancient feudal society. 

The English government was not dissatisfied with an 
emigration which removed the elements of fresh discord and 
of future revolutions. On the contrary, everything was done 
to encourage it, and little attention was paid to the destiny of 

“New England Memorial,” p. 37. 

t Tlie emigrants who founded the state of Rhode Island in 1G38, 
those who landed at New Haven in 1637, the first settlers in Connec¬ 
ticut in 1639, and the founder's of Providence in 1640, began in like 
manner by drawing up a social contract, which was submitted to the 
approval of all the interested parties. See “ Pitkin’s Historv’’ pn. 
42,47. ” 


AND ITS IMPORTANCE. 


33 


those who sought a shelter from the rigor of their country’s 
laws on the soil of America. It seemed as if New England 
was a region given up to the dreams of fancy, and the unre- 
strained experiments of innovators. 

The English colonies (and this is one of the main causes 
of their prosperity) have always enjoyed more internal free¬ 
dom and more political independence than the colonies of 
other nations; but this principle of liberty was nowhere more 
extensively applied than in the states of New England. 

It was generally allowed at that period that the territories 
of the New World belonged to that European nation which 
had been the first to discover them. Nearly the whole coast 
of North America thus became a British possession toward 
the end of the sixteenth century. The means used by the 
English government to people these new domains were of 
several kinds : the king sometimes appointed a governor of 
his own choice, who ruled a portion of the New World in the 
name and under the immediate orders of the crown ;* this is 
the colonial system adopted by the other countries of Europe. 
Sometimes grants of certain tracts were made by the crown 
to an individual or to a company,f in which case all the civil 
and political power fell into the hands of one or more per¬ 
sons, who, under the inspection and control of the crown, 
sold the lands and governed the inhabitants. Lastly, a third 
system consisted in allowing a certain number of emigrants 
to constitute a political society under the protection of the 
mother-country, and to govern themselves in whatever was 
not contrary to her laws. • This mode of colonization, so re¬ 
markably favorable to liberty, was adopted only in New 
England.if 

* This was the case in the state of New York. 

t Maryland, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, were m 
this situation. See Pitkin’s History, vol. i., pp. 11-31. 

X See the work entitled, “ Historical Collection of State Papers 
and other Authentic Documents intended as Materials for a History 
of the United States of America f by Ebenezer Hazard, Philadel¬ 
phia, 1792, for a great number of documents relating to the com¬ 
mencement of the colonies, which are valuable from their contents 
and their authenticity; among them are the various charters granted 
by the king of England, and the first acts of the local governments. 

See also the analysis of all these charters given by Mr. Story, judge 
of the supreme court of the United States, in the introduction to his 
Commentary on the Constitution of the United States. It results from 
these documents that the principles of representative government and 
the external forms of political liberty were introduced into all the 
colonies at their origin These principles were more fully acted upon 
in the North than in the South, but they existed everywhere. 


34 


ORIGIN OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS 


In 1628,* * * § a charter of this kind was granted by Charles 
I. to the emigrants who went to form the colony of Massachu¬ 
setts. But, in general, charters were not given to the colo¬ 
nies of New England till they had acquired a certain exist¬ 
ence. Plymouth, Providence, New Haven, the state of Con¬ 
necticut, and that of Rhode Island,f were founded without 
the co-operation, and almost without the knowledge of the 
mother-country. The new settlers did not derive their incor¬ 
poration from the head of the empire, although they did not 
deny its supremacy; they constituted a society of their own 
accord, and it was not till thirty or forty years afterward, 
under Charles II., that their existence was legally recog¬ 
nised by a royal charter. 

This frequently renders it difficult to detect the link which 
connected the emigrants with the land of their forefathers, 
in studying the earliest historical and legislative records of 
New England. They perpetually exercised the rights of 
sovereignty ; they named their magistrates, concluded peace 
or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws, 
as if their allegiance was due only to God.ij; Nothing can 
be more curious, and at the same time more instructive than 
the legislation of that period ; it is there that the solution of 
the great social problem which the United States now pre¬ 
sent to the world is to be found. 

Among these documents we shall notice as especially cha¬ 
racteristic, the code of laws promulgated by the little state 
of Connecticut in 1650.§ 

The legislators of Connecticut|| begin with the penal laws, 
and, strange to say, they borrow their provisions from the 
text of holy writ. 

Whoever shall worship any other God than the Lord,” 
says the preamble of the code, “ shall surely be put to 
deatbi.” This is followed by ten or twelve enactments of 
the same kind, copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, 

* See Pitkin’s History, p. 35, See the History of the Colony of 
Massachusetts Bay, by Hutchinson, vol. i., p. 9. 

t See Pitkin’s History, pp. 42, 47. 

t The inhabitants of Massachusetts had deviated from the forms 
which are preserved in the criminal and civil procedure of England: 
in 1650 the decrees of justice were not yet headed by the royal style! 
See Hutchinson, vol. i., p. 452. 

§ Code of 1650, p. 28. Hartford, 1830. 

il See also in Hutchinson’s History, vol. i., pp, 435, 456, the 
analysis of the penal code adopted in 1648, by the colony of Massa¬ 
chusetts : this code is drawn up on the same principles as that of 
Connecticut. 



AND ITS IMPORTANCE. 


35 


Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Blasphemy, sorcery, adul¬ 
tery,* and rape were punished with death ; an outrage of¬ 
fered by a son to his parents, was to be expiated by the same 
penalty. The legislation of a rude and half-civilized peo¬ 
ple was thus transferred to an-enlightened and moral com¬ 
munity. The consequence was, that the punishment of 
death was never more frequently prescribed by the statute, 
and never more rarely enforced toward the guilty. 

The chief care of the legislators, in this body of penal 
laws, was the maintenance of orderly conduct and good 
morals in the community: they constantly invaded the do¬ 
main of conscience, and there was scarcely a sin which 
they did not subject to magisterial censure. The reader is 
aware of the rigor with which these laws punished rape and 
adultery ; intercourse between unmarried persons was like¬ 
wise severely repressed. The judge was empowered to in¬ 
flict a pecuniary penalty, a whipping, or marriage,f on the 
misdemeanants ; and if the records of the old courts of New 
Haven may be believed, prosecutions of this kind were not 
infrequent. We find a sentence bearing date the first of 
May, 1660, inflicting a fine and a reprimand on a young 
woman who was accused of using improper language, and 
of allowing herself to be kissed. J The code of 1650 abounds 
in preventive measures. It punishes idleness and drunken- 
with severity.^ Innkeepers are forbidden to furnish more 
than a certain quantity of liquor to each customer; and 
simple lying, whenever it may be injurious,]! is checked by 
a fine or a flogging. In other places, the legislator, entirely 
forgetting the great principles of religious toleration which 

Adultery was also punished with death by the law of Massachu¬ 
setts ; and Hutchinson, vol. i., p. 441, says that several persons ac¬ 
tually suffered for this crime. He quotes a curious anecdote on this 
subject, which occurred in the year 1GG3. A married woman had 
had criminal intercourse with a young man; her husband died, and 
she married the lover. Several years had elapsed, when the public 
began to suspect the previous intercourse of this couple; they were 
thrown into prison, put upon trial, and very narrowly escaped capital 
})unishment. 

t Code of 1650, p. 48. It seems sometimes to have happened that 
the judge superadded these punishments to each other, as is seen in a 
sentence pronounced in 1G43 (New Haven Antiquities, p. 114), by 
which Margaret Bedford, convicted of loose conduct, was condemned 
to be whipped, and afterward to marry Nicolas Jemmings her accom¬ 
plice. 

J New Haven Antiquities, p. 104. See also Hutchinson’s History 
for several causes equally extraordinary. 

§ Code of 1650, pp. 50, 57. 

• 11 Ibid, p. 61. 






S6 


ORIGIN OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS 


he had himself upheld in Europe, renders attendance on di- 
tine service compulsory,* * * § and goes so far as to visit with 
severe punishment,f and even with deaths the Christians 
who chose to worship God according to a ritual differing 
from his own.i Sometimes indeed, the zeal of his enact¬ 
ments induces him to descend to the most frivolous particu¬ 
lars : thus a law is to be found in the same code which , pro¬ 
hibits the use of tobacco.§ It must not be forgotten that 
these fantastical and vexatious laws were not imposed by 
authority, but that they were freely voted by all the persons 
interested, and that the manners of the community were 
even more austere and more puritanical than the laws. In' 
1649 a solemn association was formed in Boston to cheek the 
worldly luxury of long hair.|( 

These erroi’s are no doubt discreditable to the human rea¬ 
son ; they attest the inferiority of our nature, which is inca¬ 
pable of laying firm hold upon what is true and just, and is 
often reduced to the alternative of two excesses* In strict 
connection with this penal legislation, which bears such 
striking marks of a narrow sectarian spirit, and of those re¬ 
ligious passions which had been warmed by persecution, and 
were still fermenting among the people, a body of political 
laws is to be found, which, though written two hundred years 
ago, is still ahead of the liberties of our age* 

The general principles which are tfie groundwork of 
modern constitutions—principles which Were imperfectly 
known in Europe, and not completely triumphant even in 
Great Britain, in the seventeenth century—were all recog¬ 
nised and determined by the laws of New England: the in- 


* Ibidy p. 44. 

f This was not pecidiar to Connenticnt. See for instance the laW 
which, on the 13th of September, 1044, banished the ana-b-aptists 
from the state of Massachusetts. (Historical Collection of State 
Papers, voL i., p. 538.) See also the law against the qtfakers, passed 
on the I4th of October, lOoO. Whereas,’^ sfiys the preamble, “air 
accursed race of heretics called quakers ha.s sprung’ up,” See. The 
clauses of the statute inflict a heavy fine on all captains of ships who 
should import quakers info the country. The quakers who may be 
found there shall be whipped and imprisoned with hard labor. Those 
members of the sect who should defend their opinions shall be first 
fined, then imprisoned, and finally driven out of the province. (His¬ 
torical Collection of State Papers, vof. i., p. 630.) 

X By the penal law of Massachusetts, any catholic priest who should 
set foot in the colony after having been once driven out of it, was lia¬ 
ble to capital punishment. 

§ Code of 1650, p. 96. 

11 New England’s Memoyial, p. 316. See Appendix E* 











AND IfS iMPORfANCE. 


fefVention of the people in public affairs, the free voting of 
taxes, the responsibility of authorities, personal liberty, and 
trial by jury, Were all positively established without dis¬ 
cussion. 

From these fruitful principles, consequences have been de¬ 
rived and applications have been made such as no nation in 
Europe has yet ventured to attempts 

In Connecticut the electoral body consisted, from its origin, 
of the whole number of citizens ; and this is readily to be 
Understood;* when we recollect that this people enjoyed an 
almost perfect equality of fortune, and a still greater uni¬ 
formity of capacity.I In Connecticut, at this period, all the 
executive functionaries were elected, including the governor 
of the state^Fhe citizens above the age of sixteen were 
obliged to bear arms; they formed a national militia, which 
appointed its own officers, and was to hold itself at all times 
in readiness to march for the defence of the country.§ 

In the laws of Connecticut, as well as in those of NeW 
England, we find the germe and gradual development of 
that township independence, which is the life and mainspring 
of American liberty at the present day* The political ex¬ 
istence of the majority of the nations of Europe commenced 
in the superior ranks of society, and was gradually and al¬ 
ways imperfectly communicated to the different members of 
the social body. In America, on the other hand, it may be 
said that the township was organized before the county, tlie 
county before the state, the state before the Union. 

In New England, townships were completely and defini¬ 
tively constituted as early as 1650. The independence of 
the township was the nucleus around which the local interests, 
passions, rights, and duties, collected and clung. It gave 
scope to the activity of a real political life, most thoroughly 
democratic and republican. The colonies still recognised 
the supremacy of the mother-country; monarchy was still 
the law of the state; but the republic was already estab¬ 
lished in every township. 

The towns named their own magistrates of every kind, 
rated themselves, aiid levied their own taxes.|| In the town- 

* Constitution of 1638, p. 17. 

t In 1641 the general assembly of Khode Island unanimously de¬ 
clared that the government of the State was a democracy, and that the 
power was vested in the body of free citizens, who alone had the right 
to make the laws and to watch their execution. Code of 1650, p. 70. 

J Pitkin’s History, p. 47. § Constitution of 1638, p. 12. 

II Code of 1650, p. 80. 

5 



38 


ORIGIN OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS 


ships of New England the law of representation was not 
adopted, but the affairs of the community were discussed, 
as at Athens, in the market-place, by a general assembly of 
the citizens. 

In studying the laws which were promulgated at this first 
era of the American republics, it is impossible not to be 
struck by the remarkable acquaintance with the science of 
government, and the advanced theory of legislation, which 
they display. The ideas there formed of the duties of so¬ 
ciety toward its members, are evidently much loftier and 
more comprehensive than those of the European legislators 
at that time: obligations were there imposed which were 
elsewhere slighted. In the states of New England, from 
the first, the condition of the poor was provided for ;* strict 
measures were taken for the maintenance of roads, and sur¬ 
veyors were appointed to attend to them ;f registers were 
established in every parish, in which the results of public 
deliberations, and the births, deaths, and marriages of the 
citizens were entered clerks were directed to keep these 
registers ;§ officers were charged with the administration of 
vacant inheritances, and with the arbitration of litigated 
landmarks; and many others were created whose chief 
functions were the maintenance of public order in the com¬ 
munity. || The law enters into a thousand useful provisions 
for a number of social wants which are at present very in¬ 
adequately felt in France. 

But it is by the attention it pays to public education that 
the original character of American civilisation is at once 
placed in the clearest light. “ It being,” says the law, “ one 
chief project of Satan to keep men from the knowledge of the 
Scripture by persuading from the use of tongues, to the end 
that learning may not be buried in the graves of our forefa¬ 
thers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our 
endeavors, . . Here follow clauses establishing schools 

in every township, and obliging the inhabitants, under pain of 
heavy fines, to support them. Schools of a superior kind 
were founded in the same manner in the more populous dis¬ 
tricts. The municipal authorities were bound to enforce the 
sending of children to school by their parents; they were 
empowered to inflict fines upon all who refused compliance; 
and in cases of continued resistance, society assumed the 

* Code of 1650, p. 78. f Code of 1750, p. 94. 

§ Ibid, p. 86. J See Hutchinson’s History, Vol. i. p. 455. 

11 Ibid, p. 40. H Code of 1650, p. 90. 






AND ITS IMPORTANCE. 


39 


place of the parent, took possession of the child, and deprived 
the father of those natural rights which he used to so bad a 
purpose. The reader will undoubtedly have remarked the 
preamble of these enactments: in America, religion is the 
road to knowledge, and the observance of the divine laws 
leads men to civil freedom. 

If, after having cast a rapid glance over the state of Ame¬ 
rican society in 1650, we turn to the condition of Europe, and 
more especially to that of the continent, at the same period, 
we cannot fail to be struck with astonishment. On the con¬ 
tinent of Europe, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, 
absolute monarchy had everywhere triumphed over the ruins of 
the oligarchical and feudal liberties of the middle ages. Never 
were the notions of right more completely confounded than 
in the midst of the splendor and literature of Europe ; never 
was there less political activity among the people ; never 
were the principles of true freedom less widely circulated ; 
and at that very time, those principles, which were scorned or 
unknown by the nations of Europe, were proclaimed in the 
deserts of the New World, and were accepted as the future 
creed of a great people. The boldest theories of the human 
reason were put into practice by a community so humble, 
that not a statesman condescended to attend to it; and a le¬ 
gislation without precedent was produced otf-hand by the 
imagination of the citizens. In the bosom of this obscure 
democracy, which had as yet brought forth neither generals, 
nor philosophers, nor authors, a man might stand up in the 
face of a free people, and pronounce amid general acclama¬ 
tions the following fine definition of liberty :*— 

“ Nor would I have you to mistake in the point of your 
owm liberty. There is a liberty of corrupt nature, which is 
affected both by men and beasts to do what they list; and this 
liberty is inconsistent with authority, impatient of all re¬ 
straint ; by this liberty ‘ sumus omnes deteriores ’t is the 
grand enemy of truth and peace, and all the ordinances of 
God are bent against it. But there is a civil, a moral, a fede¬ 
ral liberty, which is the proper end and object of authority ; 
is a liberty for that only which is just and good : for this 
liberty you are to stand with the hazard of your very lives, 

* Mather’s Magnalia Christi Americana, vol. ii., p. 13. This speech 
was made by Winthrop ; he was accused of having committed arbitrary 
actions during his magistracy, but after having made the speech of 
which the above is a fragment, he was acquitted by acclamation, and 
from that time forward he was always re-elected governor of the state. 
See Marshall, vol. i., p. 106. 


40 


ORIGIN OP THE ANGLO-AMERICANS 


and whatsoever crosses it. is not authority, but a distemper 
thereof. This liberty is maintained in a way of subjection 
to authority ; and the authority set over you will, in all admi¬ 
nistrations for your good, be quietly submitted unto by all but 
such as have a disposition to shake oft' the yoke and lose their 
true liberty, by their murmuring at the honor and power of 
authority.’^ 

The remarks I have made will suffice to display the cha¬ 
racter of Anglo-American civilisation in its true light. ‘ It is 
the result (and this should be constantly present to the mind) 
of two distinct elements, which in other places have been in 
frequent hostility, but which in America have admirably in¬ 
corporated and combined with one another. I allude to the 
spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty. 

The settlers of New England were at the same time ardent 
sectarians and daring innovators. Narrow as the limits of 
some of their religious opinions were, they were entirely free 
from political prejudices. 

Hence arose two tendencies, distinct but not opposite, which 
are constantly discernible in the manners as well as in the 
laws of the country. 

It might be imagined that men who sacrificed their friends, 
their family, ‘and their native land, to a religious conviction, 
Were absorbed in the pursuit of the intellectual advantages 
which they purchased at so dear a rate. The energy, how¬ 
ever, with which they strove for the acquirements of wealth, 
moral enjoyment, and the comforts as well as the liberties of 
the world, was scarcely inferior to that with which they de¬ 
voted themselves to Heaven. 

Political principles, and all human laws and institutions 
Were moulded and altered at their pleasure ; the barriers of 
the society in which they Were born were broken down before 
them; the old principles which had governed the w’orld for 
ages were no more ; a path without a turn, and a field with¬ 
out a horizon, were opened to the exploring and ardent curi¬ 
osity of man ; but at the limits of the political world he 
checks his researches, he discreetly lays aside the use of his 
most formidable faculties, he no longer consents to doubt or to 
innovate, but carefully abstaining fi'om raising the curtain of 
the^ sanctuary, he yields with submissive respect to truths 
which he will not discuss. 

Thus in the moral world, everything is classed, adapted, 
decided, and foreseen ; in the political world everything is 
agitatedj uncertain, and disputed : in the one is a passive, 


AND ITS IMPORTANCE. 


41 


though a voluntary obedience ; in the other an independence, 
scornful of experience and jealous of authority. 

These two tendencies, apparently so discrepant, are far 
from conflicting ; they advance together, and mutually sup¬ 
port each other. 

Religion perceives that civil liberty affords a noble exercise 
to the faculties of man, and that the political world is a field 
prepared by the Creator for the efforts of the intelligence. 
Contented with the freedom and the power which it enjoys in 
its own sphere, and with the place which it occupies, the em¬ 
pire of religion is never more surely established than when it 
reigns in the hearts of men unsupported by aught besides its 
native strength. 

Religion is no less the companion of liberty in all its bat¬ 
tles and its triumphs ; the cradle of its infancy, and the divine 
source of its claims. The safeguard of morality is religion, 
and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest 
pledge of freedom.* 


REASONS OF CERTAIN ANOMALIES WHICH THE LAWS AND 
CUSTOMS OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS PRESENT. 

Remains of aristocratic Institutions in the midst of a complete Demo¬ 
cracy.—Why ?—Distinction carefully to be drawn between what is of 
Puritanical and what is of English Origin. 

The reader is cautioned not to draw too general or too abso¬ 
lute an inference from what has been said. The social con¬ 
dition, the religion, and the manners of the first emigrants 
undoubtedly exercised an immense influence on the destiny 
of their new country. Nevertheless it was not in their power 
to found a state of things originating solely in themselves; 
no man can entirely shake off the influence of the past; and 
the settlers, unintentionally or involuntarily, mingled habits 
derived from their education and from the traditions of their 
country, with those habits and notions which were exclusively 
their own. To form a judgment on the Anglo-Americans 
of the present day, it is therefore necessary carefully to dis¬ 
tinguish what is of puritanical from what is of English origin. 

Laws and customs are frequently to be met with in the United 
States which contrast strongly with all that surrounds them. 
These laws seem to be drawn up in a spirit contrary to the 

♦ See Appendix F. 

5* 



42 


ORIGIN OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS 


prevailing tenor of the American legislation; and these cus¬ 
toms are no less opposed to the general tone of society. If 
the English colonies had been founded in an age of darkness, 
or if their origin was already lost in the lapse of years, the 
problem would be insoluble. 

I shall quote a single example to illustrate what I advance. 

The civil and criminal procedure of the Americans has 
only two means of action—committal or bail. The first 
measure taken by the magistrate is to exact security from the 
defendant, or, in case of refusal, to incarcerate him : the 
ground of the accusation, and the importance of the charges 
against him are then discussed. 

It is evident that a legislation of this kind is hostile to the 
poor man, and favorable only to the rich. The poor man has 
not always a security to produce, even in a civil cause : and 
if he is obliged to wait for justice in prison, he is speedily re¬ 
duced to distress. The wealthy individual, on the contrary, 
always escapes imprisonment in civil causes; nay, more, he 
may readily elude the punishment which awaits him for a 
delinquency, by breaking his bail. So that all the penalties 
of the law are, for him, reducible to fines.* Nothing can be 
more aristocratic than this system of legislation. Yet in 
America it is the poor who make the law, and they usually 
reserve the greatest social advantages to themselves. The 
explanation of the phenomenon is to be found in England ; 
the laws of which I speak are English,f and the Americans 
have retained them, however repugnant they may be to the 
tenor of their legislation, and the mass of their ideas. 

Next to its habits, the thing which a nation is least apt to 
change is its civil legislation. Civil laws are only familiarly 
known to legal men, whose direct interest it is to maintain 
them as they are, whether good or bad, simply because they 
themselves are conversant with them. The body of the 
nation is scarcely acquainted with them : it merely perceives 
their action in particular cases ; but it has some difficulty in 
seizing their tendency, and obeys them without reflection. 

I have quoted one instance where it would have been easy 
to adduce a great number of others. 

The surface of American society is, if I may use the ex¬ 
pression, covered with a layer of democracy, from beneath 
which the old aristocratic colors sometimes peep, (a) 

* Crimes no doubt exist for which bail is inadmissible, but they are 
few in number. 

t See Blackstone; and Delolme, book i., chap, x, 

(a) The author is not quite accurate in this statement. A person 


CHAPTER III. 


SOCIAL CONDITION OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS. 

1 A SOCIAL condition is commonly the result of circumstances, 
I sometimes of laws, oftener still of these two causes united; 

but wherever it exists, it may justly be considered as the 
j* source of almost all the laws, the usages, and the ideas, 

1 

accused of crime is, in the first instance, arrested by virtue of a war- 
• rant issued by the magistrate, upon a complaint granted upon proof of 
‘ a crime having been committed by the person charged. He is then 
brought before the magistrate, the complainant examined in his pre¬ 
sence, other evidence adduced, and he is heard in explanation or de¬ 
fence. If the magistrate is satisfied that a crime has been committed, 
and that the accused is guilty, the latter is then, and then only, requir¬ 
ed to give security for his appearance at the proper court to take his 
trial, if an indictment shall be found against him by a Grand Jury of 
twenty-three of his fellow-citizens. In the event of his inability or 
refusal to give the security he is incarcerated, so as to secure his ap¬ 
pearance at a trial. 

In France, after the preliminary examination, the accused, unless 
absolutely discharged, is in all cases incarcerated, to secure his pre¬ 
sence at the trial. It is the relaxation of this practice in England 
and the United States, in order to attain the ends of justice at the least 
possible inconvenience to the accused, by accepting what is deemed an 
adequate pledge for his appearance, which our author considers 
hostile to the poor man and favorable to the rich. And yet it is very 
obvious, that such is not its design or tendency. Good character, and 
probable innocence, ordinarily obtain for the accused man the required 
security. And if they do not, how can complaint be justly made that 
others are not treated with unnecessary severity, and punishc"^ in anti¬ 
cipation, because some are prevented by circumstances from availing 
themselves of a benign provision so favorable to humanity, and to that 
innocence which our law presumes, until guilt is proved ? To secure 
the persons of suspected criminals, that they may abide the sentence of 
the law, is indispensable to all jurisprudence. And instead of reproof 
for aristocratic tendency, our system deserves credit for having ame¬ 
liorated, as far as possible, the condition of persons accused. That 
this amelioration cannot be made in all instances, flows from the ne¬ 
cessity of the case. 

It would be a mistake to suppose, as the author seems to have done, 
that the forfeiture of the security given, exonerates the accused from 
punishment. He may be again arrested and detained in prison, as se¬ 
curity would not ordinarily be received from a person who had given 
such evidence of his guilt as would be derived from his attempt to 
escape. And the difficulty of escape is rendered so great by our con¬ 
stitutional provisions for the delivery, by the different states, of fugi¬ 
tives from justice, and by our treaties with England and France for the 
same purpose, that the instances of successful evasion are few and 
rare. 





44 


SOCIAL CONDITION OF 


which regulate the conduct of nations : whatever it does not 
produce, it modifies. 

It is, therefore, necessary, if we would become acquainted 
with the legislation and the manners of a nation, to begin by 
the study of its social condition. 


THE STRIKING CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SOCIAL CONDITION OF 
THE ANGLO-AMERICANS IS ITS ESSENTIAL DEMOCRACY. 

The first Emigrants of New England.—Their Equality.—Aristocratic 
Laws introduced in the South.—Period of the Revolution.—Change 
in the Law of Descent.—Eflects produced by this Change.—Demo¬ 
cracy carried to its utmost Limits in the new States of the West.— 
Equality of Education. 

Many important observations suggest themselves upon the 
social condition of the Anglo-Americans ; but there is one 
which takes precedence of all the rest. The social condi¬ 
tion of the Americans is eminently democratic ; this was its 
character at the foundation of the colonies, and is still more 
strongly marked at the present day. 

I have stated in the preceding chapter that great equality 
existed among the emigrants who settled on the shores of 
New England. The germe of aristocracy was never planted 
in that part of the Union. The only influence which ob¬ 
tained there was that of intellect; the people were used to 
reverence certain names as the emblems of knowledge and 
virtue. Some of their fellow-citizens acquired a power over 
the rest which might truly have been called aristocratic, if 
it had been capable of invariable transmission from father to 
son. 

This was the state of things to the east of the Hudson : to 
the southwest of that river, and in the direction of the Flori- 
das, the case was different. In most of the states situated 
to the southwest of the Hudson some great English proprie¬ 
tors had settled, who had imported with them aristocratic 
principles and the English law of descent. I have explained 
the reasons why it was impossible ever to establish a power¬ 
ful aristocracy in America ; these reasons existed with less 
force to the southwest of the Hudson. In the south, one 
man, aided by slaves, could cultivate a great extent of coun¬ 
try : it was therefore common to see rich landed proprietors. 
But their influence was not altogether aristocratic as that 
term is understood in Europe, since they possessed no privi- 



THE ANGLO-AMERICANS. 


45 


leges; and the cultivation of their estates being carried on 
by slaves, they had no tenants depending on them, and con¬ 
sequently no patronage. Still, the great proprietors south of 
the Hudson constituted a superior class, having ideas and 
tastes of its own, and forming the centre of political action. 
This kind of aristocracy sympathized with the body of the 
people, whose passions and interests it easily embraced; but 
it was too weak and too short-lived to excite either love or 
liatred for itself. This was the class which headed the in¬ 
surrection in the south, and furnished the best leaders of the 
American revolution. 

At the period of which we are now speaking, society was 
shaken to its centre: the people, in whose name the struggle 
had taken place, conceived the desire of exercising the au¬ 
thority which it had acquired; its democratic tendencies 
were awakened; and having tlirown off the yoke of the 
mother-country, it aspired to independence of every kind. 
The influence of individuals gradually ceased to be felt, and 
custom and law united together to produce the same result. 

But the law of descent was the last step to equality. 1 
am surprised that ancient and modern jurists have not attrib¬ 
uted to this law a greater influence on human affairs.* It is 
true that these laws belong to civil affairs: but they ought 
nevertheless to be placed at the head of all political institu¬ 
tions ; for, while political laws are only the symbol of a na¬ 
tion’s condition, they exercise an incredible influence upon 
its social state. They have, moreover, a sure and uniform 
manner of operating upon society, affecting, as it were, gene¬ 
rations yet unknown. 

Through their means man acquires a kind of preternatural 
power over the future lot of his fellow-creatures. When the 
legislator has once regulated the law of inheritance, he may 
rest from his labor. The machine once put in motion will 
go on for ages, and advance, as if self-guided, toward a given 
point. When framed in a particular manner, this law unites, 
draws together, and vests property and power in a few hands : 
its tendency is clearly aristocratic. On opposite principles 


* I understand by the law of descent all those laws whose principal 
object it is to regulate the distribution of property after the death of its 
owner. The law of entail is of this number : it certainly prevents 
the owner from disposing of his possessions before his death ; but this 
is solely with a view of preserving them entire for the heir. The 
principal object, therefore, of the law of entail is to regulate the de¬ 
scent of property after the death of its owner : its other provisions are 
merely means to this end. 


46 


SOCIAL CONDITION OF 


its action is still more rapid; it divides, distributes, and dis- J 
perses both property and power. Alarmed by the rapidity ■ 
of its progress, those who despair of arresting its motion | 
endeavor to obstruct by difficulties and impediments ; they 
vainly seek to counteract its effect by contrary efforts : but it | 
gradually reduces or destroys every obstacle, until by its | 
incessant activity the bulwarks of the influence of wealth 4 
are ground down to the fine and shifting sand which is the 
basis of democracy. When the law of inheritance permits, 
still more when it decrees, the equal division of a father’s 
property among all his children, its effects are of two kinds : * 
it is important to distinguish them from each other, although 
they tend to the same end. 

In virtue of the law of partible inheritance, the death of 
every proprietor brings about a kind of revolution in pro¬ 
perty : not only do his possessions change hands, but their 
very nature is altered ; since they are parcelled into shares, 
which become smaller and smaller at each division. This is 
the direct, and, as it were, the physical effect of the law. It 
follows, then, that in countries where equality of inheritance 
is established by law, property, and especially landed pro¬ 
perty, must have a tendency to perpetual diminution. The 
effects, however, of such legislation would only be percep¬ 
tible after a lapse of time, if the law was abandoned to its 
own working; for supposing a family to consist of two chil¬ 
dren (and in a country peopled as France is, the average 
number is not above three), these children, sharing among 
them the fortune of both parents, would not be poorer than 
their father or mother. 

But the law of equal division exercises its influence not 
merely upon the property itself, but it affects the minds of 
the heirs, and brings their passions into play. These indi¬ 
rect consequences tend powerfully to the destruction of large 
fortunes, and especially of large domains. 

Among the nations whose law of descent is founded upon 
the right of primogeniture, landed estates often pass from 
generation to generation without undergoing division. The 
consequence of which is, that family feeling is to a certain 
degree incorporated with the estate. The family represents 
tlie estate, the estate the family ; whose name, together with 
its origin, its glory, its power, and its virtues, is thus perpetu¬ 
ated in an imperishable memorial of the past, and a sure 
pledge of the future. 

When the equal partition of property is established by law, 
the intimate connection is destroyed between family feeling 








THE ANGLO-AMERICANS. 


47 


and the preservation of the paternal estate ; the property 
ceases to represent the family ; for, as it must inevitably be 
divided after one or two generations, it has evidently a con¬ 
stant tendency to diminish, and must in the end be com¬ 
pletely dispersed. The sons of the great landed proprietor, 
if they are few in number, or if fortune befriend them, may 
indeed entertain the hope of being as wealthy as their father, 
but not that of possessing the same property as he did ; their 
riches must necessarily be composed of elements different 
from his. 

Now, from the moment when you divest the land-owner of 
that interest in the preservation of his estate which he de¬ 
rives from association, from tradition, and from family pride, 
you may be certain that sooner or later he will dispose of it; 
for there is a strong pecuniary interest in favor of selling, as 
floating capital produces higher interest than real property, 
and is more readily available to gratify the passions of the 
moment. 

Great landed estates which have once been divided, never 
come together again; for the small proprietor draws from 
his land a better revenue in proportion, than the large owner 
does from his ; and of course he sells it at a higher rate.* 
The calculations of gain, therefore, which decided the rich 
man to sell his domain, will still more powerfully influence 
him against buying small estates to unite them into a large 
one. 

What is called family pride is often founded upon an illu¬ 
sion of self-love. A man wishes to perpetuate and immortal¬ 
ize himself, as it were, in his great-grandchildren. Where 
the esprit defamille ceases to act, individual selfishness comes 
into play. When the idea of family becomes vague, indeter¬ 
minate, and uncertain, a man thinks of his present conveni¬ 
ence ; he provides for the establishment of the succeeding 
generation, and no more. 

Either a man gives up the idea of perpetuating his family, 
or at any rate he seeks to accomplish it by other means than 
that of a landed estate. 

Thus not only does the law of partible inheritance render 
it difficult for families to preserve their ancestral domains en¬ 
tire, but it deprives them of the inclination to attempt it, and 
compels them in some measure to co-operate with the law in 
their own extinction. 

* I do not mean to say that the small proprietor cultivates his land 
better, but he cultivates it with more ardor and care; so that he makes 
up by his labor for his want of skill. 


48 


SOCIAL CONDITION OF 


The law of equal distribution proceeds by two methods : 
by acting upon things, it acts upon persons ; by influencing 
persons, it atfects things. By these means the law succeeds 
in striking at the root of landed property, and dispersing 
rapidly both families and fortunes.* 

Most certainly is it not for us, Frenchmen of the nineteenth 
century, who daily behold the political and social changes . 
which the law of partition is bringing to pass, to question its 
influence. It is perpetually conspicuous in our country, over- 
throwing the walls of our dwellings and removing the land¬ 
marks of our fields. But although it has produced great ■' 
effects in France, much still remains for it to do. Our recol¬ 
lections, opinions, and habits, present powerful obstacles to its 
progress. 

In the United States it has nearly completed its work of de¬ 
struction, and there we can best study its results. The Eng¬ 
lish laws concerning the transmission of property were abo¬ 
lished in almost all the states at the time of the revolution. 
The law of entail was so modified as not to interrupt the free 
circulation of property.f The first having passed away, 
estates began to be parcelled out; and the change became 
more and more rapid with the progress of time. At this mo¬ 
ment, after a lapse of little more than sixty years, the aspect i 
of society is totally altered ; the families of the great landed 
proprietors are almost all commingled with the general mass. 

In the state of New York, which formerly contained many 
of these, there are but two who still keep their heads above 
i’lie stream ; and they must shortly disappear. The sons of 
these opulent citizens have become merchants, lawyers, or ■ 
physicians. Most of them have lapsed into obscurity. The | 

* Land being the most stable kind of property, we find, from time to , 
time, rich individuals who are disposed to make great sacrifices in ; 
order to obtain it, and who willingly forfeit a considerable part of their 
income to make sure of the rest. But these are accidental cases. The 
preference for landed property is no longer found habitually in any 
class but among the poor. The small land-owner, who has less infor- ; 
mation, less imagination, and fewer passions, than the great one, is ; 
generally occupied with the desire of increasing his estate ; and it 
often happens that by inheritance, by marriage, or by the chances of 
trade, he is gradually furnished with the means. Thus, to balance the 
tendency which leads men to divide their estates, there exists another, 
which incites them to add to them. This tendency, which is sufficient 
to prevent estates from being divided ad infinitum, is not strong ’ 
enough to create great territorrial possessions, certainly not to keep 
them up in the same family. ^ 

t See Appendix G. " 1 








THE ANGLO-AMERICANS. 


49 


last trace of hereditary ranks and distinctions is destroyed— 
the law of partition has reduced all to one level. 

I do not mean that there is any deficiency of wealthy indi- 
viduals in the United States; I know of no country, indeed, 
where the love of money has taken stronger hold on the af¬ 
fections of men, and where a profounder contempt is express¬ 
ed for the theory of the permanent equality of property. But 
wealth circulates with inconceivable rapidity, and experience 
shows that it is rare to find two succeeding generations in the 
full enjoyment of it. 

This picture, which may perhaps be thought overcharged, 
still gives a very imperfect idea of what is taking place in 
the new states of the west and southwest. At the end of the 
last century a few bold adventurers began to penetrate into 
the valleys of the Mississippi, and the mass of the population 
very soon began to move in that direction: communities un¬ 
heard of till then were seen to emerge from their wilds: 
states, whose names were not in existence a few years before, 
claimed their place in the American Union ; and in the west¬ 
ern settlements we may behold democracy arrived at its ut¬ 
most extreme. In these states, founded off hand, and as it 
were by chance, the inhabitants are but of yesterday. 
Scarcely known to one another, the nearest neighbors are 
ignorant of each other’s history. In this part of the Ameri¬ 
can continent, therefore, the population has not experienced 
the influence of great names and great wealth, nor even that 
of the natural aristocracy of knowledge and virtue. None 
are there to wield that respectable power which men willingly 
grant to the remembrance of a life spent in doing good before 
their eyes. The new states of the west are already inhabit¬ 
ed ; but society has no existence among them. 

It is not only the fortunes of men which are equal in Ame¬ 
rica ; even their acquirements partake in some degree of the 
same uniformity. I do not believe there is a country in the 
\vorld where, in proportion to the population, there are so few 
uninstructed, and at the same time so few learned individuals. 
Primary instruction is within the reach of everybody ; supe¬ 
rior instruction is scarcely to be obtained by any. This is 
not surprising ; it is in fact the necessary consequence of 
what we have advanced above. Almost all the Americans 
are in easy circumstances, and can therefore obtain the ele¬ 
ments of human knowledge. 

In America there are comparatively few who are rich 
enough to live without a profession. Every profession re¬ 
quires an apprenticeship, which limits the time of instruction 
6 





50 


SOCIAL CONDITION OF 


to the early years of life. At fifteen they enter upon their 
calling, and thus their education ends at the age when ours 
begins. Whatever is done afterward, is with a view to some 
special and lucrative object; a science is taken up as a mat- 
ter of business, and the only branch of it which is attended 1 
to is such as admits of an immediate practical application. I 

[This paragraph does not fairly render the meaning of the author. » 
The original French is as follows:— , . . 1 

“ En Amerique il y a peu de riches; presque tous les Americains ^ 

ont done besoin d’exercer^une profession. Or, toute profession exige j 

an apprentissage. Les Americains ne peuvent done donner a la culture 
generate de I’intelligence que les premieres annees de la vie : a quinze i 
ans, ils entrent dans une carriere: ainsi leur education finit le plus | 
souvent a I’epoque ou la notre commence.” ' 

What is meant by the remark, that “ at fifteen they enter upon a ;t,1 

career, and thus their education is very often finished at the epoch | 

when ours commences,” is not clearly perceived. Our professional 1 

men enter upon their course of preparation for their respective profes- j 

sions, wholly between eighteen and twenty-one years of age. Appren- j 

tices to trades are bound out, ordinarily , at fourteen, but what general j 

education they receive is after that period. Previously, they have ac- € 

quired the mere elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic. But it -1 

is supposed there is nothing peculiar to America, in the age at which i 

apprenticeship commences. In England, they commence at the same 
age, and it is believed that the same thing occurs throughout Europe. ■ 
It is feared that the author has not here expressed himself with his usual ' ' 
clearness and precision.— American Editor.] 

In America most of the rich men were formerly poor: 
most of those who now enjoy leisure were absorbed in busi¬ 
ness during their youth ; the consequence of which is, that 
when they might have had a taste for study they had no time 
for it, and when the time is at their disposal they have no ’ 

longer the inclination. 

There is no class, then, in America in which the taste for 
intellectual pleasures is transmitted with hereditary fortune 
and leisure, and by which the labors of the intellect are held 
in honor. Accordingly there is an equal want of the desire 
and the power of application to these objects. 

A middling standard is fixed in America for human know¬ 
ledge. All approach as near to it as they can ; some as they 
rise, others as they descend. Of course, an immense mul¬ 
titude of persons are to be found who entertain the same 
number of ideas on religion, history, science, political eco¬ 
nomy, legislation, and government. The gifts of intellect 
proceed directly from God, and man cannot prevent their un¬ 
equal distribution. But in consequence of the state of things 
which we have here represented, it happens, that although 





THE ANGLO-AMERICANS. 


51 


the capacities of men are widely different, as the Creator has 
doubtless intended they should be, they are submitted to the 
same method of treatment. 

In America the aristocratic element has always been fee¬ 
ble from its birth; and if at the present day it is not 
actually destroyed, it is at any rate so completely disabled 
that we can scarcely assign to it any degree of influence in 
the course of affairs. 

The democratic principle, on the contrary, has gained so 
much strength by time, by events, and by legislation, as to 
have become not only predominant but all-powerful. There 
is no family or corporate authority, and it is rare to find even 
the influence of individual character enjoy any durability. 

America, then, exhibits in her social state a most extraor¬ 
dinary phenomenon. Men are there seen on a greater equal¬ 
ity in point of fortune and intellect, or in other words, more 
equal in their strength, than in any other country of the 
world, or, in any age of which history has preserved the re¬ 
membrance. 


POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SOCIAL CONDITION OF THE 
ANGLO-AMERICANS. 

The political consequences of such a social condition as this 
are easily deducible. 

It is impossible to believe that equality will not eventually 
find its way into the political world as it does everywhere 
else. To conceive of men remaining for ever unequal upon 
one single point, yet equal on all others, is impossible ; they 
must come in the end to be equal upon all. 

Now I know of only two methods of establishing equality 
in the political world : every citizen must be put in possession 
of his rights, or rights must be granted to no one. For nations 
which have arrived at the same stage of social existence as 
the Anglo-Americans, it is therefore very difficult to discover 
a medium between the sovereignty of all and the absolute 
power of one man: and it would be vain to deny that the 
social condition which I have been describing is equally 
liable to each of these consequences. 

There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality, 
which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This 
passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; 
but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for 







52 


PRINCIPLE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY 


equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the 
powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer 
equality in slavery to inequality with freedom. Not that 
those nations whose social condition is democratic naturally 
despise liberty ; on the contrary, they have an instinctive love 
of it. But liberty is not the chief and constant object of 
their desires ,* equality is their idol: they make rapid and 
sudden efforts to obtain liberty, and if they miss their aim, 
resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing can 
satisfy them except equality, and rather than lose it they 
resolve to perish. 

On the other hand, in a state where the citizens are nearly 
on an equality, it becomes difficult for them to preserve their 
independence against the aggression of power. No one 
among them being strong enough to engage singly in the 
struggle with'advantage, nothing but a general combination 
can protect their liberty : and such a union is not always to 
be found. 

From the same social position, then, nations may derive 
one or the other of two great political results ; these results 
are extremely different from each other, but they may both 
proceed from the same cause. 

The Anglo-Americans are the first who, having been ex¬ 
posed to this formidable alternative, have been happy enough 
to escape the dominion of absolute power. They have been 
allowed by their circumstances, their origin, their intelli¬ 
gence, and especially by their moral feeling, to establish and 
maintain the sovereignty of the people. 


^ CHAPTER IV. 

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE IN 
AMERICA. 


It predominates oyer the whole of Society in America.—Application 
made of this Principle by the Americans even before their Revolu¬ 
tion.—Development given to it by that Revolution.—Gradual and 
irresistible Extension of the elective Qualification. 

Whenever the political laws of the United States are to be 
discussed, it is with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the peo¬ 
ple that we must begin. 







OF THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA. 


53 


The principle of the sovereignty of the people, which is to 
-be found, more or less, at the bottom of almost all human in- 
stitutions, generally remains concealed from view. It is 
obeyed without being recognised, or if for a moment it be 
brought to light, it is hastily cast back into the gloom of the 
sanctuary. 

“ The will of the nation” is one of those expressions which 
liave been most profusely abused by the wily and the despotic 
of every age. To the eyes of some it has beeil represented 
by the venal suffrages of a few of the satellites of power ; to 
others, by the votes of a timid or an interested minority ; 
and some have even discovered it in the silence of a people, 
on the supposition that the fact of submission established the 
- right of command. 

In America, the principle of the sovereignty of the people 
is not either barren or concealed, as it is with some other na¬ 
tions ; it is recognised by the customs and proclaimed by the 
laws; it spreads freely, and arrives without impediment at its 
most remote consequences. If there be a country in the 
world where the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people can 
be fairly appreciated, where it can be studied in its applica¬ 
tion to the affairs of society, and where its dangers and its 
advantages may be foreseen, that country is assuredly 
America. 

I have already observed that, from their origin, the sove¬ 
reignty of the people was the fundamental principle of the 
greater number of the British colonies in America. It was 
far, however, from then exercising as much influence on the 
government of society as it now does. Two obstacles, the 
one external, the other internal, checked its invasive progress. 

It could not ostensibly disclose itself in the laws of the 
colonies, which were still constrained to obey the mother- 
country ; it was therefore obliged to spread secretly, and to 
gain ground in the provincial assemblies, and especially in 
the townships. 

American society was not yet prepared to adopt it with all 
its consequences. The intelligence of New England, and 
the wealth of the country to the south of the Hudson (as I 
have shown in the preceding chapter), long exercised a sort 
of aristocratic influence, which tended to limit the exercise 
of social authority within the hands of a few. The public 
functionaries were not universally elected, and the citizens 
were not all of them electors. The electoral franchise was 
everywhere placed within certain limits, and made dependant 
6 * 


54 


PRINCIPLE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY 


on a certain qualification, which was exceedingly low in the 
north, and more considerable in the south. 

The American revolution broke out, and the doctrine of 
the sovereignty of the people, which had been nurtured in the 
townships, took possession of the state; every class was 
enlisted in its cause ; battles were fought, and victories ob¬ 
tained for it ; until it became the law of law’s. 

A scarcely less rapid change was effected in the interior 
of society, where the law of descent completed the abolition 
of local influences. 

At the very time when this consequence of the laws and 
of the revolution became apparent to every eye, victory was 
irrevocably pronounced in favor of the democratic cause. 
All power was, in fact, in its hands, and resistance was no 
longer possible. The higher orders submitted without a mur¬ 
mur and without a struggle to an evil which was thenceforth 
inevitable. The ordinary fate of falling powers awaited 
them; each of their several members followed his own inter¬ 
est ; and as it was impossible to wring the power from the 
hands of a people which they did not detest sufficiently to 
brave, their only aim was to secure its good-will at any price. 
The most democratic laws were consequently voted by the 
very men whose interests they impaired ; and thus, although 
the higher classes did not excite the passions of the people 
against their order, they accelerated the triumph of the new 
state of things ; so that, by a singular change, the democratic 
impulse was found to -be most irresistible in the very states 
where the aristocracy had the firmest hold. 

The state of Maryland, which had been founded by men 
of rank, was the first to proclaim universal suffrage,* and to 
introduce the most democratic forms into the conduct of its 
government. 

When a nation modifies the elective qualification, it may 
easily be foreseen that sooner or later that qualification will 
be entirely abolished. There is no more invariable rule in 
the history of society : the farther electoral rights are ex¬ 
tended, the more is felt the need of extending them; for 
after each concession the strength of the democracy in- 
creases, and its demands increase with its strength. The 
ambition of those who are below the appointed rate is irri¬ 
tated in exact proportion to the great number of those who 
are above it. The exception at last becomes the rule, con- 

* See the amendments made to the constitution of Maryland in 1801 
and 1809. 








OF THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA, 


55 


cession follows concession, and no stop can be made short of 
universal suffrage. 

At the present day the principle of the sovereignty of the 
people has acquired, in the United States, all the practical 
development which the imagination can conceive. It is un¬ 
encumbered by those fictions which have been thrown over it 
ill other countries, and it appears in every possible form 
according to the exigency of the occasion. Sometimes the 
laws are made by the people in a body, as at Athens ; and 
sometimes its representatives, chosen by universal suffrage, 
transact business in its name, and almost under its immediate 
control. 

In some countries a power exists which, though it is in a 
degree foreign to the social body, directs it, and forces it to 
pursue a certain track. In others the ruling force is divided, 
being partly within and partly without the ranics of the peo¬ 
ple. But nothing of the kind is to be seen in the United 
States; there society governs itself for itself. All power 
centres in its bosom ; and scarcely an individual is to be met 
with who would venture to conceive, or, still more, to express, 
the idea of seeking it elsewhere.. The nation participates in 
the making of its laws by the choice of its legislators, and 
in the execution of them by the choice of the agents of the 
executive government; it may almost be said to govern 
itself, so feeble and so restricted is the share left to the ad¬ 
ministration, so little do the authorities forget their popular 
origin and the power from which they emanate.* 


CHAPTER V. 

NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE CONDITION OF THE STATES 
BEFORE THAT OF THE UNION AT LARGE. 

It is proposed to examine in the following chapter, what is 
the form of government established in America on the prin- 
ciple of the sovereignty of the people ; what are its re¬ 
sources, its hindrances, its advantages, and its dangers. The 
first difficulty which presents itself arises from the complex 
nature of the constitution of the United States, which consists 
of two distinct social structures, connected, and, as it were, 

' See Appendix H. 



56 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


encased, one within the other; two governments, completely 
separate, and almost independent, the one fulfilling the ordi¬ 
nary duties, and responding to the daily and indefinite calls 
of a community, the other circumscribed within certain 
limits, and only exercising an exceptional authority over the 
general interests of the country. In short, there are twenty- 
four small sovereign nations, w'hose agglomeration constitutes 
the body of the Union. To examine the Union before we 
have studied the states, would be to adopt a method filled 
with obstacles. The Federal government of the United States 
was the last which was adopted; and it is in fact nothing 
more than a modification or a STiramary of these republican 
principles which were current in the whole community be¬ 
fore it existed, and independently of its existence. ^lore- 
over, the federal government is, as I have just observed, the 
exception ; the government of the states is the rule. _ The 
author who should attempt to exhibit the picture as a whole, 
before he had explained its details, would necessai'ily fall 
into obscurity and repetition. 

The great political principles which govern American 
society at this day, undoubtedly took their origin and their 
growth in the state. It is therefore necessary to become 
acquainted with the state in order to possess a clew to the 
remainder. The states which at present compose the Ame¬ 
rican Union, all present the same features as far as regards 
the external aspect of their institutions. Their political or 
administrative existence' is centred in three foci of action, 
which may not inaptly be compared to the different nervous 
centres which convey motion to the human body. The 
toNVTiship is in the lowest order, then the county, and lastly 
the state; and I propose to devote the following chapter to 
the examination of these three divisions. 


THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF TOWNSHIPS AND MUNICIPAL BODIES. 

Why the Author begins the Examination of the Political Institutions 
with the Township.—Its Existence in all Nations.—Difficulty of 
Establishing and Preserving Independence.—Its Importance.—-Why 
the Author has selected the Township System of New England as 
the main Object of his Inquiry. 

* [It is by this periphrasis that I attempt to render the French 
expressions “ Commune’’’ and “ Systhne Communal’’ I am not 
aware that any English word precisely corresponds to the general term 
of the original. In France every association of human dwellings forms 





CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


57 


It is not undesignedly that I begin this subject vvith the town¬ 
ship. The village or township is the only association whicli 
is so perfectly natural, that wherever a number of men are 
collected, it seems to constitute itself. 

Tlie town, or tithing, as the smallest division of a commu¬ 
nity, must necessarily exist in all nations, whatever their 
laws and customs may be: if man makes monarchies, and 
establishes republics, the first association of mankind seems 
constituted by the hand of God. But although the existence 
of the township is coeval with that of man, its liberties are 
not the less rarely respected and easily destroyed. A nation 
is always able to establish great political assemblies, because 
it habitually contains a certain number of individuals fitted 
by their talents, if not by their habits, for the direction of 
affairs. The township is, on the contrary, composed of 
coarser materials, which are less easily fashioned by the 
legislator. The difficulties Avhich attend the consolidation of 
its independence rather augment than diminish with the in¬ 
creasing enlightenment of the people. A highly-civilized 
community spurns the attempts of a local independence, is 
disgusted at its numerous blunders, and is apt to despair of 
success before the experiment is completed. Again, no im¬ 
munities are so ill-protected from the encroachments of the 
supreme power as those of municipal bodies in general : they 
are unable to struggle, single-handed, against a strong or an 
enterprising government, and they cannot defend their cause 
with success unless it be identified'with the customs of the 
nation and supported by public opinion. Thus, until the 
independence of townships is amalgamated with the manners 
of a people, it is easily destroyed; and it is only after a long 
existence in the laws that it can be thus amalgamated. 
Municipal freedom eludes the exertions of man ; it is rarely 
created ; but it is, as it were, secretly and spontaneously 

a commune^ and every commune is governed)by a maire and a conseil 
municipal. In other words, the mancipium or municipal privilege, 
which belongs in England to chartered corporations alone, is alike 
extended to every commune into which the cantons and departments 
of France were divided at the revolution. Thence the different appli¬ 
cation of the expression, which is general in one country and restricted 
in the other. In America, the counties of tlie northern states are 
divided into towmships, those of the southern into parishes; besides 
which, municipal bodies, bearing the name of corporations, exist in 
the cities. 1 shall apply these several expressions to render the term 
commune. The word “parish,” now commonly used in England, 
belongs exclusively to the ecclesiastical division; it denotes the limits 
over which a parsorCs {personce ecclesice or perhaps parochianus) 
rights extend.—Translator’s JYote.l 





58 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


engendered in the midst of a semi-barbarous state of society. 
The constant action of the laws and the national habits, 
peculiar circumstances, and above all, time, may consoli¬ 
date it; but there is certainly no nation on the continent of 
Europe which has experienced its advantages. Neverthe¬ 
less, local assemblies of citizens constitute the strength of 
free nations. Municipal institutions are to liberty what 
primary schools are to science; they bring it within^ the 
people’s reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy 
it. A nation may establish a system of free government, 
but without the spirit of municipal institutions it cannot have 
the spirit of liberty. The transient passions, and the inte¬ 
rests of an hour, or the chance of circumstances, may have 
created the external forms of independence ; but the despotic 
tendency which has been repelled will, sooner or later, inevi¬ 
tably reappear on the surface. 

In order to explain to the reader the general principles on 
which the political organisations of the counties and town¬ 
ships of the United States rest, I have thought it expedient 
to choose one of the states of New England as an example, 
to examine the mechanism of its constitution, and then to cast 
a general glance over the country. 

The township and the county are not organized in the same 
manner in every part of the Union; it is, however, easy to 
perceive, that the same principles have guided the formation 
of both of them throughout the Union. I am inclined to 
believe that these principles have been carried farther in New 
England than elsewhere, and consequently that they offer 
greater facilities to the observations of a stranger. 

The institutions of New ^England form a complete and 
regular whole ; they have received the sanction of time, they 
have the support of the laws, and the still stronger support of 
the manners of the community, over which they exercise the 
most prodigious influence ; they consequently deserve our 
attention on every account. 


LIMITS OF THE TOWNSHIP. 

The township of New England is a divison which stands 
between the commune and the canton of France, and which cor¬ 
responds in general to the English tithing, or town. Its 
average population is from two to three thousand ;* so that, 

* In 1830, there were 305 townships in the state of Massachusetts, 







tONBlTION OF THE STATES. 


59 


on the one hand, the interests of the inhabitants are not likely 
to conflict, and, on the other, men capable of conducting its 
affairs are ahvays to be found among its citizens. 


AUTHORITIES OF THE TOWNSHIP IN NEW ENGLAND. 

The People the Source of all Power here as Elsewhere.—Manages its 
own Affairs. No Corporation.'-“The greater part of the Authority 
vested in the Hands of the Selectmen.—How the Selectmen act. 
Town-meeting.—Enumeration of the public Officers of the Township. 
Obligatory and remunerated Functions. 

In the township, as well as everywhere else, the people is 
the only source of power; but in no stage of government does 
the body of citizens exercise a more immediate influence. 
In America, the people is a master whose exigences demand 
obedience to the utmost limits of possibility. 

In New England the majority acts by representatives in 
the conduct of the public business of the state ; but if such 
an arrangement be necessary in general affairs, in the town¬ 
ship, where the legislative and administrative action of the 
government is in more immediate contact with the subject, 
the system of' representation is not adopted. There is no 
corporation ; but the body of electors, after having designated 
its magistrates, directs them in anything that exceeds the 
simple and ordinary executive business of the state.* 

This 'slate of things is so contrary to our ideas, and so 
different from our customs, that it is necessary for me to 
adduce some examples to explain it thoroughly. 

The public duties in the township are extremely numerous 
and minutely divided, as we shall see farther on ; but the 
large proportion of administrative power is vested in the hands 
of a small number of individuals called “ the selectmen.”! 

The general laws of the state impose a certain number of 
obligations on the selectmen, which may they fulfil without 

and 610,014 inhabitants; which gives an average of about 2,000 inhabi¬ 
tants to each township. 

* The same rules are not applicable to the great towns, which 
generally have a mayor, and a corporation divided into two bodies; 
this, however, is an exception which requires a sanction of a law. See 
the act of 22d February. 1S22, for appointing the authorities of the city 
of Boston. It frequently happens that small towns as well as cities are 
subject to a peculiar administration. In 1832, 104 townships in the 
state of New York were governed in this nvAnnevTVilliams's Re- 
gistfr. I 

t 'rhree scJcclmcii are appointed in the .small township.s, and nine in 







60 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


the authorization of the body they govern, but whieh they cati 
only neglect on their own responsibility. The law of the 
state obliges them, for instance, to draw up the list of electors 
in the townships ; and if they omit this part of their functions, “ 
they are guilty of a misdemeanor. In all the affairs, how¬ 
ever, which are determined by the town-meeting, the select¬ 
men are the organs of the popular mandate, as in France the 
maire executes the decree of the municipal council. They 
usually act upon their cywn responsibility, and merely put in 
practice principles which have been previously recognised by 
the majority. But if any change is to be introduced in the 
existing state of things, or if they wish to undertake any new 
enterprise, they are obliged to refer to the source of their 
power. If, for instance, a school is to be established, the 
selectmen convoke the whole body of electors on a certain r 
day at an appointed place j they explain the urgency of the 
case ; they give their opinion on the means of satisfying it, 
on the probable expense, and the site which seems to be most 
favorable. The meeting is consulted on these several points ; 
it adopts the principle, marks out the site, votes the rate, and 
confides the execution of its resolution to the selectmen. 

The selectmen alone have the right of calling a towm- 
meeting ; but they may be requested to do so ^ if fh^e citizens 
are desirous of sitbmitting a new project to the assent of the 
township, they may demand a general convocation of the 
inhabitants; the selectmen are obliged to comply, but they 
have only the right of presiding at the meeting.**^ 

The selectmen are elected every year in the month of 
April or of May. The town-meeting chooses at the same time 
a number of municipal magistrates, who are intrusted with 
important administrative functions. The assessors rate the 
township; the collectors receive the rate. A constable is 
appointed to keep the peace, to watch the streets, and to for¬ 
ward the execution of the laws; the totvn-clerk records all 
the town votes, orders, grants, births, deaths, and marriages 2 
the treavsurer keeps tlie funds; tlie overseer of the poor per¬ 
forms the difficult task of superintending the action of the 
poor laws j committee-men are appointed to attend to the 

the large ones. See “ Tlie Town Officer,” p, 1S6. See also the princi¬ 
pal laws of the state of Massachusetts relative to the selectmen ;— 

Act of the 2(?th FeDinrary, 1786, vol. i., p. 219'; 24fh February, 
1796, vol. i., p. 488, 7th March, 1801, vol. ii., p. 45; 16th June, 1795, 
vol. i., p. 475 ; 12th March, 1808, vol. h., p. 186; 28th February, 1787, 
voi. i.,p. 302; 22d June, 1797, vol. i., p. 539. 

* See laws of Massachusetts, vol. i., p. 1.50. Act of the 25th March, 
1786. 






CONDITION OP THE STATES. 


01 


schools and to public instruction ; and the road-surveyors, 
who take care of the greater and lesser thoroughfares of the 
township, complete the list of the principal functionaries. 
They are, however, still farther subdivided ; and among the 
municipal officers are to be found parish commissioners, who 
audit the expenses of public worship ; different classes of 
inspectors, some of whom are to direct the citizens in case 
of fire ; ttthing-men, listers, hay wards, chimney-viewers, 
fence-view^ers to maintain the bounds of property, timber- 
measurers, and sealers of weights and measures."*^ 

There are nineteen principal offices in a township. Every 
inhabitant is constrained, on pain of being fined, to undertake 
these different functions ; which, however, are almost all paid, 
in order that the poor citizens may be able to give up their time 
without loss. In general the American system is not to grant 
a fixed salary to its functionaries. ' Every service has its 
price, and they are remunerated in proportion to what they 
have done. 


EXISTENCE OP THE TOWNSHIP. 

Every one the best Judge of his own Interest.-^Corollary of the Princi¬ 
ple of the Sovereignty of the Peopie.--‘Application of these Doctrines 
in the Townships of Attierica.—=The Township of New England is 
Sovereign in that which concerns itself alone; subject to the State 
in all other matters.-“Bond of Township and the State.—-In France 
the Government lends its Agents to the Commune.^ln America the 
Reverse occurs. 

I HAVE already observed, that the principle of the sovereign¬ 
ty of the people governs the whole political system of the 
Anglo-Americans. Every page of this book will afford 
new instances of the same doctrine. In the nations by which 
the sovereignty of the people is recognised, every individual 
possesses an equal share of power, and participates alike in 
the government of the state. Every individual is therefore 
supposed to be as well informed, as virtuous, and as strong, 
as any of his fellow-citizens. He obeys the government, not 
because he is inferior to the authorities which conduct it, or 
that he is less capable than his neighbor of governing himself, 

* All these magistrates actually exist; their different functions are 
all detailed in a book called, “The Town Officer,” by Isaac Goodwin, 
Worcester, 1B27; and in the Collection of the General Laws of Massa¬ 
chusetts, 3 vols., Boston, 1823, ‘ ■ --v 




62 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


but because he acknowledges the utility of an association with 
his fellow-men, and because he knows that no such associa¬ 
tion can exist without a regulating force. If he be a subject 
in all that concerns the mutual relations of citizens, he is free' 
and responsible to God alone for all that concerns himself.. 
Hence arises the maxim that every one is the best and the 
sole judge of his own private interest, and that society has no 
right to control a man’s actions, unless they are prejudicial 
to the common weal, or unless the common weal demands his 
co-operation. This doctrine is universally admitted in the 
United States. I shall hereafter examine the general influence 
which it exercises on the ordinary actions of life : I am now 
speaking of the nature of municipal bodies. 

The township, taken as a whole, and in relation to the 
government of'the country, may be looked upon as an indi¬ 
vidual to whom the theory I have just alluded to is applied. 
Municipal independence is therefore a natural consequence 
of the principle of the sovereignty of the people in the United 
States, all the American republics recognise it more or less ; 
but circumstances have peculiarly favored its growth in New 
England. 

In this part of the Union the impulsion of political activity 
was given in the townships ; and it may almost be said that 
each of them originally formed an independent nation. When 
the kings of England asserted their supremacy, they were 
contented to assume the central power of the state. The 
townships of New England remained as they were before; 
and although they are now subject to the state, they were at 
first scarcely dependent upon it. It is important to remember 
that they have not been invested wdth privileges, but that they 
seem, on the contrary, to have surrendered a portion of their 
independence to the state. The townships are only subordi¬ 
nate to the state in those interests which I shall term social, 
as they are common to all the citizens. They are indepen¬ 
dent in all that concerns themselves; and among the inhabit¬ 
ants of New England I believe that not a man is to be found 
who would acknowledge that the state has any right to inter¬ 
fere in their local interests. The towns of New England buy 
and sell, prosecute or are indicted, augment or diminish then- 
rates, without the slightest opposition on the part of the ad¬ 
ministrative authority of the state. 

They are bound, however, to comply with the demands of 
the community. If the state is in need of money, a town can 
neither give nor withhold the supplies. If the state projects a 
road, the township cannot refuse to let it cross its territory j 



CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


63 


if a police regulation is made by the state, it must be enforced 
by the town. A uniform system of instruction is organised 
all over the country, and every town is bound to establish the 
schools which the law ordains. In speaking of the adminis¬ 
tration of the United States, I shall have occasion to point out 
the means by which the townships are compelled to obey in 
these different cases : I here merely show the existence of 
the obligation. Strict as this obligation is, the government 
of the state imposes it in principle only, and in its perform¬ 
ance the township resumes all its independent rights. Thus, 
taxes are voted by the state, but they are assessed and col¬ 
lected by the township ; the existence of a school is obliga¬ 
tory, but the township builds, pays, and superintends it. In 
France the state collector receives the local imposts; in 
America the town collector receives the taxes of the state. 
Thus the French government lends its agents to the commune ; 
in America, the township is the agent of the government. 
This fact alone shows the extent of the differences which exist 
between the two nations. 


PUBLIC SPIRIT OF THE TOWNSHIPS OF NEW ENGLAND. 

How the Township of New England wins the Affections of its Inhabit¬ 
ants.—Difficulty of creating local public Spirit in Europe.—The 
Rights and Duties of the American Township favorable to it.—Cha¬ 
racteristics of Home in the United States.—Manifestations of public 
Spirit in New England.—Its happy Effects. 

1 1 In America, not only do municipal bodies exist, but they are 
i \ kept alive and supported by public spirit. The township of 
J j New England possesses two advantages which infallibly 
1 1 secure the attentive interest of mankind, namely, independ- 
i I ence and authority. Its sphere is indeed small and limited, 
I but within that sphere its action is unrestrained ; and its in- 
1 dependence would give to it a real importance, even if its 
* extent and population did not ensure it. 

It is to be remembered that the affections of men are gene¬ 
rally turned only where there is strength. Patriotism is not 
» durable in a conquered nation./ The New Englander is 
i attached to his township,, not only because he was born in it, 

I but because it constitutes a strong and free social body of 
which he is a member, and whose government claims and 
deserves the exercise of his sagacity. In Europe, the absence 
1 of local -public spirit is a frequent subject of regret to those 






64 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


who are in power; every one agrees that there is no surer 
guarantee of order and tranquillity, and yet nothing is more 
difficult to create. If the municipal bodies were made pow¬ 
erful and independent, the authorities of the nation might be 
disunited, and the peace of the country endangered. Yet, 
without power and independence, a town may contain good 
subjects, but it can have no active citizens. Another impor¬ 
tant fact is, that the township of New England is so consti¬ 
tuted as to excite the warmest of human affections, without 
arousing the ambitious passions of the heart of man. The 
officers of the county are not elected, and their authority is 
very limited. Even the state is only a second-rate commu¬ 
nity, whose tranquil and obscure administration offers no 
inducement sufficient to draw men away from the circle of 
their interests into the turmoil of public affairs. The federal 
government confers power and honor on the men who con- 
duct it; but these individuals can never be very numerous. 
The high station of the presidency can only be reached at an 
advanced period of life; and the other federal functionaries 
are generally men who have been favored by fortune, or dis¬ 
tinguished in some other career. Such cannot be the perma¬ 
nent aim of the ambitious. But the township serves as a 
centre for the desire of public esteem, the want of exciting 
interests, and the. taste for authority and popularity, in the 
midst of the ordinary relations of life : and the passions which 
commonly embroil society, change their character when they 
find a vent so near the domestic hearth and the family circle. 

In the American states power has been disseminated with 
admirable skill, for the purpose of interesting the greatest 
possible number of persons in the common weal. Indepen¬ 
dently of the electors who are from time to time called into 
action, the body politic is divided into innumerable function¬ 
aries and officers, who all, in their several spheres, represent 
the same powerful corporation in whose name they act. The 
local admintstration thus affords an unfailing source of profit 
and interest to a vast number of individuals. 

The American system, which divides the local authority 
among so many citizens, jloes not scruple to multiply the 
functions of the town officers. For in the United States, it is 
believed, and with truth, that patriotism is a kind of devotion, 
which is strengthened by ritual observance. In this manner 
the activity of the township is continually perceptible ; it is 
daily manifested in the fulfilment of a duty, or the exercise 
of a right; and a constant though gentle motion is thus kept 
Up in society which animates without disturbing it. 



CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


65 


The American attaches himself to his home, as the moun¬ 
taineer clings to his hills, because the characteristic features 
of his country are there more distinctly marked than else¬ 
where. The existence of the towmships of New England is 
in general a happy one. Their government is suited to their 
tastes, and chosen by themselves. In the midst of the pro¬ 
found peace and general comfort which ^ reign in America, 
the commotions of municipal discord are infrequent. The 
conduct of local business is eas'y. The political education 
of the people has long been complete; say rather that it was 
complete when the people first set foot upon the soil. In New 
England no tradition exists of a distinction of ranks ; no por¬ 
tion of the community is tempted to oppress the remainder ; 
and the abuses which may injure isolated individuals are for¬ 
gotten in the general contentment which prevails. If the 
government is defective (and it would no doubt be easy to 
point out its deficiencies), the fact that it really emanates 
from those it governs, and that it acts, either ill or w'ell, casts 
the protecting spell of a parental pride over its faults. No 
term of comparison disturbs the satisfaction of the citizen : 
England formerly governed the mass of the colonies, but the 
people was always sovereign in the township, where its rule 
is not only an ancient, but a primitive state. 

The native of New England'^is attached to his township 
, because it is independent and free; his co-operation in its 
affairs ensures his attachment to its interest; the well-being 
it affords him secures his affection ; and its welfare is the 
aim of his ambition and of his future exertions ; he takes a 
I part in‘ every occurrence in the place ; he practises the art 
i of government in the small sphere within his reach ; he ac- 
I customs himself to those forms which can alone ensure the 

I steady progress of liberty; he imbibes their spirit; he ac- 

i quires a taste for order, comprehends the union of the balance 
■ ' 'of powers, and collects clear practicarnotions on the nature 
I of his duties and the extent of his rights. 

r ' ‘ 


THE COUNTIES OF NEW ENGLAND. 

The division of the counties in America has considerable 
analogy with that of the arrondissements of France. The 
limits of the counties^ are arbitrarily laid down, and the 
various districts which they contain have no necessary con¬ 
nexion, no common traditional or natural sympathy ; their 
7 * 







66 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


"object is simply to facilitate the administration of public 
affairs. 

The extent of the township was too small to contain a 
system off judicial institutions; each county has, however, 
a court of justice,* * * § a sheriff* to execute its decrees, and a 
prison for criminals. There are certain wants which are 
felt alike by all the townships of a county; - it is therefore 
natural that they should be satisfied by a central authority. 
In the state of Massachusetts this authority is vested’ in the 
hands of several magistrates who are appointed by the gov¬ 
ernor of the state, with the advicef of his council.:{; The 
officers of the county have only a limited and occasional 
authority, which is applicable to certain predetermined cases. 
The state and the townships possess all the power requisite 
to conduct public business. The budget of the county is 
only drawn up by its officers, and is voted by the legisla¬ 
ture.§ There is no assembly which directly or indirectly 
represents the county; it has, therefore, properly speaking, 
no political existence. 

A twofold tendency may be discerned in the American 
constitutions, which impels the legislator to centralize the 
legislative, and to disperse the executive power. The town¬ 
ship of New England has in itself an indestructible element 
of independence ; but this distinct existence could only be 
fictitiously introduced into the county, where its utility had 
not been felt. All the townships united have but one repre¬ 
sentation, which is the state, the centre of the national autho¬ 
rity : beyond the action of the township and that of the nation, 
nothing can be said to exist but the influence of individual 
exertion. (' 

* See the act of 14th February, 1821. Laws of Massachusetts, vol. 

1., p. 551. 

t Seethe act of 20th February, 1819. Laws of Massachusetts, vol. 

11., p. 494. 

X The council of the governor is an elective body. 

§ See the act of 2d November, 1791. Laws of Massachusetts, vol. 

1., p. 61. ' 









CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


67 


ADMINISTRATION IN NEW ENGLAND. 

Administration not perceived in America.—Why i*—The Europeans 
believe that Liberty is promoted by depriving the social Authority 
of some of its Rights ; the Americans, by dividing its Exercise.— 
Almost all the Administration confined to the Township, and divided 
among the town Officers.—No trace of an administrative Hierarchy 
to be perceived either in the Township, or above it.—The Reason 
of this.—How it happens that the Administration of the State is 
uniform.—Who is empowered to enforce the Obedience of the Town¬ 
ship and the County to the Law.—The introduction of judicial 
Power into the Administration.—Consequence of the Extension of 
the elective Principle to all Functionaries.—The Justice of the Peace 
in New England.—By whom Appointed.—County Officer.—Ensures 
the Administration of the Townships.—Court of Sessions.—Its Ac¬ 
tion.—Right of Inspection and Indictment disseminated like the 
other administrative Functions.—Informers encouraged by the divi¬ 
sion of Fines. 

Nothing is more striking to a 'European traveller in the 
United States than the ab.sence of what we term government, 
or the administration. Written laws exist in America, and 
one sees that tliey are daily executed ; but although every¬ 
thing is in motion, the hand which gives the impulse to the 
social machine can nowhere be discovered. Nevertheless, 
as all people are obliged to have recourse to certain gram¬ 
matical forms, which are the foundation of human language, 
in order to express their thoughts ; so all communities are 
obliged to secure their existence by submitting to a certain 
portion of authority, without which they fall a prey to 
anarchy. This authority may be distributed in several 
ways, but it must always exist somewhere. 

There are two methods of diminishing the force of autho¬ 
rity in a nation. 

The first is to weaken the supreme power in its very prin¬ 
ciple, by forbidding or preventing society from acting in its 
own defence under certain circumstances. To weaken au¬ 
thority in this manner is what is generally termed in Europe 
to lay the foundations of freedom. 

The second manner of diminishing the influence of autho¬ 
rity does not consist in stripping society of any of its rights, 
nor in paralysing its efforts, but in distributing the exercise 
of its privileges among various hands, and in multiplying 
functionaries, to each of whom the degree of power necessary 
for him to perform his duty is intrusted. There may be 
nations whom this distribution of social powers might lead to 
anarchy ; but in itself it is not anarchical. The action of 
authority is indeed thus rendered less irresistible, and less 
perilous, but it is not totally suppressed. 





68 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


The revolution of the United States was the result of a 
mature and deliberate taste for freedom, not of a vague or 
ill-defined craving for independence. It contracted no alli¬ 
ance with the turbulent passions of anarchy; but its course 
was marked, on the contrary, by an attachment to whatever 
was lawful and orderly. 

It was never assumed in the United States that the citizen 
of a free country has a right to do whatever he pleases : on 
the contrary, social obligations were there imposed upon him 
more various than anywhere else ; no idea was ever enter¬ 
tained of attacking the principles, or of contesting the rights 
of society ; but the exercise of its authority was divided, to 
the end that the office might be powerful and the officer insig¬ 
nificant, and that the community should be at once regulated 
and free. In no country in the world does the law hold so 
absolute a language as in America ; and in no country is the 
right of applying it vested in so many hands. The adminis¬ 
trative power in the United States presents nothing either 
central or hierarchical in its constitution, which accounts for 
its passing unperceived. The power exists, but its repre¬ 
sentative is not to be discerned. 

We have already seen that the independent townships of 
New England protect their own private interests; and the 
municipal magistrates are the persons to whom the execution 
of the laws of the state is most frequently intrusted.* “'Be¬ 
side the general laws, the state sometimes passes general 
police regulations; but more commonly the townships and 
town officers, conjointly with the justices of the peace, regu¬ 
late the minor details of social life, according to the necessi¬ 
ties of the different localities, and promulgate sudh enact¬ 
ments as concern the health of the community, and the peace 
as well as morality of the citizens.f Lastly, these municipal 
magistrates provide of their own accord and without any 


* See “The Town Officer,” especially at the words Selectmen-,^ 
Assessors, Collectors, Schools, Surveyors or Highways. I 
take one example in a thousand : the state prohibits travelling on a 
Sunday; the tything-men, who are town-officers, are especially 
charged to keep watch and to execute the law. See the laws of Mas¬ 
sachusetts, vol. i., p. 410. 

The selectmen draw up the lists of electors for the election of the 
governor, and transmit the result of the ballot to the secretary of the 
state. See act of 24th February, 1796 ; lb., vol. i., p. 488. 

t Thus, for instance, the selectmen authorise the construction of 
drains, point out the proper sites for slaughter-houses and other trades 
which are a nuisance to the neighborhood. See the act of 7th June, 
1785; Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i., p. 193. 





CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


69 


delegated powers, for those unforeseen emergencies which 
frequently occur in society.* * * § 

It results, from what we have said, that in the state of 
Massachusetts the administrative authority is almost entirely 
restricted to the township,'!' but that it is distributed among a 
great number of individuals. In the French commune there 
is properly but one official functionary, namely, the maire; 
and in New England we have seen that there are nineteen. 
These nineteen functionaries do not in general depend upon 
one another. The law carefully prescribes a circle of action 
to each of these magistrates ; and within that circle they 
have an entire right to perform their functions independently 
of any other authority. Above the township scarcely any 
trace of a series of official dignities is to be found. It some¬ 
times happens that the county officers alter a decision of the 
townships, or town magistrates,:]: but in general the authori¬ 
ties of the county have no right to interfere with the authori¬ 
ties of the township,^ except in such matters as concern the 
county. 

The magistrates of the township, as wjell as those of the 
county, are bound to communicate their acts to the central 
government in a very small number of predetermined cases, [j 
But the central government is not represented by ,an indi¬ 
vidual whose business it is to publish police regulations and 
ordinances enforcing the execution of the laws; to keep up 

* The selectmen take measures for the security of the public in 
case of contagious disease, conjointly with the justices of the peace. 
See the act of 22d June, I 797 ; vol. i., p. 539. 

,f I say almost^ for there are various circumstances in the annals of 
a township which are regulated by the justice of the peace in his indi¬ 
vidual capacity, or by the justices of the peace, assembled in the chief 
town of the county ; thus licenses are granted by the justices. See 
the act of 28th Feb., 1787 ; vol. i., p. 297. 

f Thus licenses are only granted to such persons as can produce a 
certificate of good conduct from the selectmen. If the selectmen 
refuse to give the certificate, the party may appeal to the justices 
assembled in the court of sessions; and they may grant the license. 
See the act of 12th March, 1808; vol. ii., p. 18G. 

The townships have the right to make by-laws, and to enforce them 
by fines which are fixed by law; but these by-laws must be approved 
by the court of sessions. See the act of 23d March, 178G ; vol. i., p. 
254. 

§ In Massachusetts the county-magistrates are frequently called upon 
to investigate the acts of the town-magistrates; but it will be shown 
farther on that this investigation is a consequence, not of their admin¬ 
istrative, but of their judicial power. 

II The town committees of schools are obliged to make an annual 
report to the secretary of the state on the condition of the School. See 
the act of 10th March, 1827; vol. iii., p. 183. ^ • 


70 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


a regular communication with the officers of tlie township 
and tlie county ; to inspect their conduct, to direct their 
actions, or reprimand their faults. There is no point which 
serves as a centre to the radii of the administration. 

What, then, is the uniform plan on which the government 
is conducted, and how is the compliance of the counties and 
their magistrates, or the townships and their officers, enforc¬ 
ed ? In the states of New England the legislative authority 
embraces more subjects than it does in France ; the legisla¬ 
tor penetrates to the very core of the administration ; the law 
descends to the most minute details ; the same enactment pre¬ 
scribes the principle and the method of its application, and 
thus imposes a multitude of strict and rigorously defined ob¬ 
ligations on the secondary functionaries of the state. Tlie 
consequence of this is, that if all the secondary functionaries 
of the administration conform to the law, society in all its 
branches proceeds with the greatest uniformity ; the difficulty 
remains of compelling the secondary functionaries of the ad¬ 
ministration to conform to the law. It may be affirmed that, 
in general, society has only two methods of enforcing the 
execution of the laws at its disposal; a discretionary power 
may be intrusted to a superior functionary of directing all 
the others, and of cashiering them in case of disobedience; 
or the courts of justice may be authorized to inflict judicial 
penalties on the offender: but these two methods are not 
always available. ^ . 

The right of directing a civil officer pre-supposes that of 
cashiering him if he does not obey orders, and of rewarding 
him by promotion if he fulfils his duties with propriety. But 
an elected magistrate can neither be cashiered nor promoted. 
All elective functions are'inalienable until their term is ex¬ 
pired. In fact, the elected magistrate has nothing either to 
expect or to fear from his constituents ; and when all public 
offices are filled by ballot, there can be no series of official 
dignities, because the double right of commanding and of en¬ 
forcing obedience can never be vested in the same individual, 
and because the power of issuing an order can never be join¬ 
ed to that of inflicting a punishment or bestowing a reward. 

The communities therefore in which the secondary func¬ 
tionaries of the government are elected, are perforce obliged 
to make great use of judicial penalties as a means of admi¬ 
nistration. This is'not evident at first sight; for those in 
power are apt to look upon the institution of elective func¬ 
tionaries as one concession, and the subjection of the elective 
magistrate to the judges of the land as another. They are 





CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


71 


equally averse to both these innovations; and as they are 
more pressingly solicited to grant the former than the latter, 
they accede to the election of the magistrate, and leave him 
independent of the judicial power. Nevertheless, the second 
of these measures is the only thing that can possibly counter¬ 
balance the first; and it will be found that an elective au¬ 
thority which is not subject to judicial power will, sooner or 
later, either elude all control or be destroyed. The courts 6f 
justice are the only possible medium between the central 
power and the administrative bodies; they alone can compel 
the elected functionary to obey, without violating the rights 
of the elector. The extension of judicial power in the 
political world ought therefore to be in the exact ratio of,the 
extension of elective offices; if these two institutions do not 
go hand in hand, the state must fall into anarchy or into sub¬ 
jection. 

It has always been remarked that habits of legal business 
do not render men apt to the exercise of administrative author 
ity. The Americans have borrowed from the English, their 
fathers, the idea of an institution which is unknown upon the 
continent of Europe: I allude to that of justices of the 
peace. 

The justice of the peace is a sort of mezzo termine between 
the magistrate and the man of the world, between the civil 
officer and the judge. A justice of the peace is a well-in¬ 
formed citizen, though he is not necessarily versed in the 
knowledge of the laws. His office simply obliges him to exe¬ 
cute the police regulations of society ; a task in which good 
sense and integrity are of more avail than legal science. 
The justice introduces into the administration a certain taste 
for established forms and publicity, which renders him a most 
unserviceable instrument of despotism ; and, on the other 
hand, he is not blinded by those superstitions which render 
legal officers unfit members of a government. The Ameri¬ 
cans have adopted the system of English justices of the 
peace, but they have deprived it of that aristocratic character 
which is discernible in the mother-country. The governor of 
Massachusetts* appoints a certain number of justices of the 
peace in every county, whose functions last seven years.j* 
He farther designates three individuals from among the whole 

* We shall hereafter learn what a governor is; I shall content my¬ 
self with remarking in this place, that he represents the executive 
power of the whole state. 

t See the constitution of Massachusetts, chap, ii., § 1; chap, iii., 

§ 3. 





72 


NECESSITY OP EXAMINING THE 


body of justices, who form in each county what is called the 
court of sessions. The justices take a personal share in pub¬ 
lic business ; they are sometimes intrusted with administra¬ 
tive functions in conjunction with elected officers ;* * * § they 
sometimes constitute a tribunal, before which the magistrates 
summarily prosecute a refractory citizen or the citizens in¬ 
form against the abuses of the magistrate. But it is in the 
court of sessions that they exercise their most important func¬ 
tions. ^ This court meets twice a year in the county town ; in 
Massachusetts it is empowered to enforce the obedience of the 
greater numberj" of public officers.:}: It must be observed 
that in the state of Massachusetts the court of sessions is at 
the same time an administrative body, properly so called, and 
a political tribunal. It has been asserted that the county is a 
purely administrative division. The court of sessions pre¬ 
sides over that small number of affairs which, as they con¬ 
cern several townships, or all the townships of the county in 
common, cannot be intrusted to any of them in particular.§ 
In all that concerns county business, the duties of the court 
of sessions are therefore purely administrative ; and if in its 
investigations it occasionally borrows the forms of judicial 
procedure, it is only with a view to its own information, |j or 

* Thus, for example, a stranger arrives in a township from a coun¬ 
try where a contagious disease prevails, and he falls ill. Two justices 
of the peace can, with the assent of the selectmen, order the sheriff’of 
the county to remove and take care of him. Act of 22d June, 1797; 
vol. i., p. ,540. 

In general the justices interfere in all the important acts of the ad¬ 
ministration, and give them a semi-judicial character. 

t I say the greater number because certain administrative misde¬ 
meanors are brought before the ordinary tribunals. If, for instance, a 
township refuses to make the necessary expenditure for its schools, or 
to name a school-committee, it is liable to a heavy fine. But this pe¬ 
nalty is pronounced by the supreme judicial court or the court of com¬ 
mon pleas. See the act of 10th March, 1827 ; laws of Massachu¬ 
setts, vol. iii., p. 190. Or when a township neglects to provide the 
necessary war-stores. Act of 21st February, 1822; Id. vol. ii., p. 
570. 

:}; In their individual capacity, the justices of the peace take a part 
in the business of the counties and townships. The more important 
acts of the municipal government are rarely decided upon without the 
co-operation of one of their body. 

§ These affairs may be brought under the following heads ; 1. The 
erection of prisons and courts of justice. 2. The county budget, wliich 
is afterward voted by the state. 3. The assessment of the taxes so 
voted. 4. Grants of certain patents. 5. The laying down and repairs 
of the county roads. 

11 Thus, when a road is under consideration, almost all difficulties are 
disposed of by the aid of the jury. 






CONDITION OP THE STATES. 


73 


as a guarantee to the community over which it presides. But 
when the administration of the toWnship is brought before it, 
it almost always acts as a judicial body, and in some few 
cases as an administrative assembly, '• 

The first difficulty is to procure the obedience of an author¬ 
ity so entirely independent of the general laws of the state as 
the township is. We have stated that assessors are annually 
named by the town meetings, to levy the taxes. If a town¬ 
ship attempts to evade the payment of the taxes by neglecting 
to name its assessor, the court of sessions condemns it to a 
heavy penalty.* The fine is levied on each of the inhabit¬ 
ants ; and the sheriff of the county, who is an officer of jus¬ 
tice, executes the mandate. Thus it is that in the United 
States the authority of the government is mysteriously con¬ 
cealed under the forms of a judicial sentence ; and the influ¬ 
ence is at the same time fortified by that irresistible power 
with which men have invested the formalities of law. 

These proceedings are easy to follow, and to understand. 
The demands made upon a township are in general plain and 
accurately defined ; they consist in a simple fact without any 
complication, or in a principle without its application in de¬ 
tail.f But the difficulty increases when it is not the obedi¬ 
ence of the township, but that of the town officers, which is 
to be enforced. All the reprehensible actions of which a 
public functionary may be guilty are reducible to the follow¬ 
ing heads:— 

He may execute the law without energy or zeal; , 

He may neglect to execute the law ; 

He may do what the law enjoins him not to do. 

The last two violations of duty can alone come under the 
cognizance of a tribunal; a positive and appreciable fact is 
the indispensable foundation of an action at law. Thus, if 
the selectmen omit to fulfil the legal formalities usual to 
town elections, they may be condemned to pay a finebut 

* See the act of the 20th February, 1780; laws of Massachusetts, 
vul. i., p. 217. 

t There is an indirect method of enforcing the obedience of a town¬ 
ship. Suppose that the funds which the law demands for the mainte¬ 
nance of the roads have not been voted; the town-surveyor is then 
authorized, ex-officio^ to levy the supplies. As he is personally respon¬ 
sible to private individuals for the state of the roads, and indictable be¬ 
fore the court of sessions, he is sure to employ the extraordinary ri^ht 
which the law gives him against the township. Thus by threatening 
the officer, the court of sessions exacts compliance from the town. See 
the act of 5th March, 1787; laws of Massachasetts, vol. i., p. 305 
t Laws of Massachusetts, vol. 2., p. 45. 

8 








74 


NECESSITY or EXAMINING THE 


when the public officer performs his duty without ability, and 
when he obeys the letter of the law without zeal or energy, 
he is at least beyond the reach of judicial interference. The 
court of sessions, even when it is invested with its adminis¬ 
trative powers, is in this case unable to compel him to a more 
satisfactory ol^dience. The fear of removal is the only 
check to- these quasi offences ; and as the court of sessions 
does not originate the town authorities, it cannot remove func¬ 
tionaries whom it does not appoint. Moreover, a perpetual 
investigation would be necessary to convict the subordinate 
officer of negligence or lukewarmness ; and the court of ses¬ 
sions sits but twice a year, and then only judges such offences 
as are brought before its notice. The only security for that 
active and enlightened obedience, which a court of justice 
cannot impose upon public officers, lies in the possibility of 
their arbitrary removal. In France this security is sought 
for in powers exercised by the heads of the administration ; 
in America it is sought for in the principle of election. 

Thus, to recapitulate in a few words what I have been 
showing:— , 

If a public officer in New England commits a crime in the 
exercise of bis functions, the ordinary courts of justice are 
always called upon to pass sentence upon him. 

If he commits a fault in his official capacity, a purely ad¬ 
ministrative tribunal is empowered to punish him ; and, if the 
affair is important or urgent, the judge supplies the omission 
of the functionary.* 

Lastly, if the same individual is guilty of one of those in¬ 
tangible offences, of which human justice has no cognizance, 
he annually appears before a tribunal from which there is no 
appeal, which can at once reduce him to insignificance, and 
deprive him of his charge. This system undoubtedly pos¬ 
sesses great advantages, but its execution is attended with a 
practical difficulty which it is important to point out. 

I have already observed, that the administrative tribunal, 
which is called the court of sessions, has no right of inspec¬ 
tion over the town officers. It can only interfere when the 
conduct of a magistrate is specially brought under its notice ; 
and this is the delicate part of the system. The Americans 

of New England are unacquainted with the office of public 

) - 

* If, for instance, a township persists in refusing to name its asses¬ 
sors, the court of sessions nominates them ; and the magistrates thus 
appointed are invested with the same authority as elected officers See 
the act quoted above, 20th February, 1787. 





CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


75 


prosecutor in the court of sessions,* * * § and it may readily be per¬ 
ceived that it could not have been established without diffi¬ 
culty. If an accusing magistrate had merely been appointed 
in the chief town of each county, and if he had been unassisted 
by agents in the townships, he would not have been better 
acquainted with what was going on in the county than the 
members of the court of sessions. But to appoint agents in 
each township, would have been to centre in his person the 
most formidable of powers, that of a judicial administration. 
Moreover, laws are the children of habit, and nothing of the 
kind exists in the legislation of England. The Americans 
have therefore divided the officers of inspection and of prose¬ 
cution as well as all the other functions of the administration. 
Grand-jurors are bound by the law to apprize the court to 
which they belong of all the misdemeanors which may have 
been committed in their county.f There are certain great 
offences which are officially prosecuted by the state; J but 
more frequently the task of punishing delinquents devolves 
upon the fiscal officer, whose province it is to receive the 
fine ; thus the treasurer of the township is charged with the 
prosecution of such administrative offences as fall under his 
notice. But a more especial appeal is made by American 
legislation to the private interest of the citizen,^ and this great 
principle is constantly to be met with in studying the laws of 
the United States. American legislators are more apt to give 
men credit for intelligence than for honesty ; and they rely 
not a little on personal cupidity for the execution of the laws. 
When an individual is really and sensibly injured by an ad¬ 
ministrative abuse, it is natural that his personal interest 
should induce him to prosecute. But if a legal formality be 
required which, however advantageous to the community, is 
of small importance to individnals, plaintiffs may be less 
easily found ; and thus, by a tacit agreement, the laws might 
fall into disuse. Reduced by their system to this extremity, 
the Americans are obliged to encourage informers by bestow, 
ing on them a portion of the penalty in certain cases ;|| and 

* I say the court of sessions, because in common courts there is a 
magistrate who exercises some of the functions of a public prosecutor. 

t The grand-jurors are, for instance, bound to inform the court ot 
the bad state of the roads. Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i., p. 308. 

J If, for instance, the treasurer of the county holds back his account 
Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i., p. 406. 

§ Thus, if a private individual breaks down or is wounded in conse¬ 
quence of the badness of a road, he can sue the township or the county 
for damages at the sessions. Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i., p. 309. 

11 In cases of invasion or insurrection, if the town officers neglect 



76 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


to ensure the execution of the laws by the dangerous expedi¬ 
ent of degrading the morals of the people. 

The only administrative authority above the county magis¬ 
trates is, properly speaking, that of the government. , . 


GENERAL REMARKS ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED 

STATES. 

Difference of the States of the Union in their Systems of Administra¬ 
tion.—Activity and Perfection of the local Authorities decreases to¬ 
wards the South.—Power of the Magistrates increases ; that of the 
Elector diminishes.—Administration passes from the Township to 
the County.—States of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania.—Principles 
of Administration applicable to the whole Union.—Election of public 
Officers, and Inalienability of their Functions.—Absence of Gradation 
of Ranks.—Introduction of judicial Resources into the Adminis¬ 
tration. 

I HAVE already premised that after having examined the 
constitution of the township and the county of New England 
in detail, I should take a general view of the remainder of 
the Union. Townships and a local activity exist in every 
state ; but in no part of the confederation is a township to be 
met with precisely similar to those in New England. The 
more we descend toward the south, the less active does the 
business of the township or parish become ; the number of 
magistrates, of functions, and of rights, decreases ; the popu¬ 
lation exercises a less immediate influence on affairs; town- 
meetings are less frequent, and the subjects of debates less 
numerous. The power of the elected magistrate is aug¬ 
mented, and that of the elector diminished, while the public 
spirit of the local communities is less awakened and less in¬ 
fluential.* 

furnish the necessary stores and ammunition for the militia, the town¬ 
ship may be condemned to a fine of from two to five hundred dollars. 
It may readily be imagined that in such a case it might happen that no 
one cared to prosecute: hence the law adds that all the citizens may 
indict offences of this kind, and that half the fine shall belong to the 
plaintiff. See the act of 6th March, ISIO; vol. ii., p. 236. The same 
clause is frequently to be met with in the laws of Massachusetts. Not 
only are private individuals thus incited to prosecute public officers, 
but the public officers are encouraged in the same manner to bring the 
disobedience of private individuals to justice. If a citizen refuses to 
perform^he work which has been assigned to him upon a road, the 
road-surveyor may prosecute him, and he receives half the penalty for 
himself. See the laws above quoted, vol. i., p. 308. 

* For details, see Revised Statutes of the state of New York, part I., 





CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


77 


These differences may be perceived to a certain extent in 
the state of New York ; they are very sensible in Pennsyl- 
vania ; but they become less striking as we advance to the 
northwest. The majority of the emigrants who settle in the 
northwestern states are natives of New England, and they 
carry the habits of their mother-country with them into that 
wdiich they adopt. A township in Ohio is by no means dis¬ 
similar from a township in Massachusetts. 

We have seen that in Massachusetts the principal part of 
the public administration lies in the township. It forms the 
common centre of the interests and affections of the citizens. 
But this ceases to be the case 'as we descend to states in 
which knowledge is less generally diffused, and where the 
township consequently offers fewer guarantees of a wise and 
active administration. As we leave New England, there¬ 
fore, we find that the importance of the town is gradually 
transferred to the county, which becomes the centre of ad¬ 
ministration, and the intermediate power between the govern¬ 
ment and the citizen. In Massachusetts the business of the 
town is conducted by the court of sessions, which is composed 
of a quorum named by the governor and his council; but the 
county has no representative assembly, and its expenditure is 
voted by the national {a) legislature. In the great state of 
New York, on the contrary, and in those of Ohio and Penn¬ 
sylvania, the inhabitants of each county choose a certain 
number of representatives, who constitute the assembly of 
the county.* The county assembly has the right of taxing 
the inhabitants to a certain extent; and in this respect it en¬ 
joys the privileges of a real legislative body: at the same 

chap, xi., vol. i., pp, 33G-3G4, entitled, “ Of the Powers, Duties, and 
Privileges of Towns.” 

See in the digest of the laws of Pennsylvania, the words. Assessors, 
Collector, Constables, Overseer of the Poor, Supervisors of 
Highways : and in the acts of a general nature of the state of Ohio, 
the act of 25th February, 1834, relating to townships, p. 412; beside 
the peculiar dispositions relating to divers town officers, such as town¬ 
ship’s clerks, trustees, overseers of the poor, fence-viewers, appraisers 
of property, township’s treasurer, constables, supervisors of highways. 

(a) The author means the state legislature. The congress has no 
control over the expenditure of the counties or of the states. 

* See the Revised Statutes of the state of New York, part i., chap, 
xi., vol. i.,p. 410. Idem, chap, xii., p. 36G: also in the acts of the 
state of Ohio, an act relating to county commissioners, 25th February, 
1824, p. 2G3. See the Digest of the Laws of Pennsylvania, at the 
words. County-rates AND Levies, p. 170. 

In the state of New York, each township elects a representative, who 
has a share in the administration of the county as well as in that of the 
township. 

8* 






78 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE - 


time it exercises an executive power in the county, frequently 
directs the administration of the townships, and restricts their 
authority within much narrower bounds than in Massa¬ 
chusetts. ^ , p 

Such are the principal differences which the systems of 
county and town administration present in the federal states. 
Were it my intention to examine the provisions of American w 
law minutely, I should have to point out still farther differences ® 
in the executive details of the several communities. But 
what I have already said may suffice to show the general 
principles on which the administration of the United States 
rests. These principles are differently applied ; their conse¬ 
quences are more or less numerous in various localities ; but 
they are always substantially the same. The laws differ, 
and their outward features change, but their character does 
not vary. If the township and the county are not everywhere 
constituted in the same manner, it is at least true that in the 
United States the county and the township are always based 
upon the same principle, namely, that every one is the best 
judge of what concerns himself alone, and the person most 
able to supply his private wants. The township and the 
county are therefore bound to take care of their special 
interests : the state governs, but it does not interfere with their 
administration. Exceptions to this rule may be met with, 
but not a contrary principle. 

The first consequence of this doctrine has been to cause 
all the magistrates to be chosen either by, or at least from 
among the citizens. As the officers are everywhere elected 
or appointed for a certain period, it has been impossible to 
establish the rules of a dependent series of authorities ; there 
are almost as many independent functionaries as there are 
functions, and the executive power is disseminated in a multi¬ 
tude of hands. Hence arose the indispensable necessity of 
introducing the control of the courts of justice over the 
administration, and the system of pecuniary penalties, by 
which the secondary bodies and their representatives are con¬ 
strained to obey the laws. JPhe system obtains from one end 
of the Union to the other. The power of punishing the mis¬ 
conduct of public officers, or of performing the part of the 
executive, in urgent cases, has not, however, been bestowed 
on the same judges in all the states. The Anglo-Americans 
derived the institution of justices of the peace from a common 
source ; but although it exists in all the states, it is not always 
turned to the same use.. The justices of the peace every¬ 
where participate in the administration of the townships and 



CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


79 


Ihc counties,* either as public officers or as the judges of pub¬ 
lic misdemeanors, but in most of the states the more important 
classes of public offences come under the cognisance of the 
ordinary tribunals. 

The election of public officers, or the inalienability of their 
functions, the absence of a gradation of powers, and the intro- 
tluction of a judicial control over the secondaiy branches of 
the administration, are the universal characteristics of the 
American system from Maine to the Floridas. In some 
states (and that of New York has advanced most in this 
direction) traces of a centralised administration begin to be 
discernible. In the state of New York the officers of the 
central government exercise, in certain cases, a sort of 
inspection of control over the secondary bodies.f At other 
times they constitute a court of appeal for the decision of 
affairs. J In the state of New York judicial penalties are less 

* In some of the southern states the county-courts are charged with 
all the details of the administration. See the Statutes of the State of 
Tennessee, arts. Judiciary, Taxes, &c. 

t For instance, the direction of public instruction centres in the 
hands of the government. The legislature names the membei-s of the 
university, who are denominated regents ^ the governor and lieutenant- 
governor of the state are necessarily of the number. Revised Statutes, 
vol. i., p, 455. The regents of the university annually visit the colleges 
and academies, and make their report to the legislature. Their super¬ 
intendence is not inefficient, for several reasons : the colleges in order 
to become corporations stand in need of a charter, which is only granted 
on the recommendation of the regents : every year funds are distributed 
by the state for the encouragement of learning, and the regents are the 
distributors of this money. See chap, xv., Public Instruction,” 
Revised Statutes, vol i., p. 455. 

The school commissioners are obliged to send an annual report to the 
superintendent of the state. Idem, p. 448. 

A similar report is annually made to the same person on the number 
and condition of the poor.> Idem, p. 631. 

} If any one conceives himself to be wronged by the school commis¬ 
sioners (who are town-officers), he can appeal to the superintendent of 
the primary schools, whose decision is final. Revised Statutes, vol. i., 
p. 487. - 

Provisions similar to those above cited are to be met with from time 
to time in the laws of the state of New York : but in general these 
attempts at centralisation are weak and unproductive. The great au¬ 
thorities of the state have the right of watching and controlling the 
subordinate agents, without that of rewarding or punishing them. The 
same individual is never- empowered to give an order and to punish 
disobedience; he has therefore the right of commanding, without the 
means of exacting compliance. In 1830 the superintendent of schools 
complained in his annual report addressed to the legislature, that 
several school commissioners had neglected, notwithstanding his appli¬ 
cation, to furnish him with the accounts which were due. He added, 
that if this omission continued, he should be obliged to prosecute them, 
as the law directs, before the proper tribunals. 







80 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


used than in other parts as a means of administration ; and 
the right of prosecuting the offences of public officers is 
vested in fewer hands.* * * § The same tendency is faintly 
observable in some other states ;■! but in general the promi¬ 
nent feature of the administration in tine United States is its 
excessive local independence. 


^ • OF THE STATE. ' 

I HAVE described the townships and the administration: it 
now remains for me to speak of the state and government. 
This is ground I may pass over rapidly, without fear of being 
misunderstood; for all I have to say is to be found in written 
forms of the vai’ious constitutions, which are easily to be 
procured.:]: These constitutions rest upon a simple and 
rational theory ; their forms have been adopted by all consti¬ 
tutional nations, and are become familiar to us. 

In this place, therefore, it is only necessary for me to give 
a short analysis; I shall endeavor afterward to pass judgment 
upon what I now describe. ' ' 


LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATE. 

Division of the Legislative Body into two Houses.—Senate.—House of 
Representatives.—Different functions of these two Bodiesv ‘ . 

The legislative power of the state is vested in two assemblies, 
the first of which generally bears the name of the senate. 

The senate is commonly a legislative body ; but it some¬ 
times becomes an executive and judicial one. It takes a part 
in the government in several ways, according to the constitu¬ 
tion of the difterent states ;§ but it is in the nomination of 

* Thus the, district-attorney is directed tO' recover aff fines below the 
sum of fifty dollars, (a) unless such a right has been specially awarded 
to another magi^rate. Revised Statutes, vol. i., p. 3S3. 

f Several traces of centralisation may be discovered in Massachusetts, 
for instance, the committees of the town-schools are directed to make 
an annual report to the secretary of state. See Laws of Massachusetts, 
vol. i., p. 367. 

I See the constitution of New York. 

§ In Massachusetts the Senate is not invested with any administra¬ 
tive functions. 

(a) The words below the sam of fifty dollars should be omitted ia the above note. 




CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


81 


public functionaries that it most commonly assumes an execu¬ 
tive power. It partakes of judicial power in the trial of 
certain political offences, and sometimes also in the decision 
of certain civil cases.* The number of its members is 
always small. The other branch of the legislature, which 
is usually called the house of representatives, has no share 
whatever in the administration, and only takes a part in the 
judicial power inasmuch as it impeaches public functionaries 
before the senate. 

The members of the two houses are nearly everywhere 
subject to the same conditions of election. They are chosen 
in the same manner, and by the same citizens. 

The only difference which exists between them is, that the 
term for which the senate is chosen, is in general longer than 
that of the house of representatives. The latter seldom 
remain in office longer than a year; the former usually sit 
two or three years. 

By granting to the senators the privilege of being chosen 
for several years, and being renewed seriatim, the law takes 
care to preserve in the legislative body a nucleus of men 
already accustomed to public business, and capable of exer- 
cising a salutary influence upon the junior members. 

The Americans, plainly, did not desire, by this separation 
of the legislative body into two branches, to make one house 
hereditary and the other elective; one aristocratic and the 
other democratic. It was not their object to create in the one 
a bulwark to power, while the other represented the interests 
and passions of the people. The only advantages which 
result from the present constitution of the United States, are, 
the division of the legislative power, and the consequent check 
upon political assemblies ; with the creation of a tribunal of 
appeal for the revision of the laws. 

Time and experience, however, have convinced the Ame¬ 
ricans that if these are its only advantages, the division of 
the legislative power is still a principle of the greatest neces¬ 
sity. Pennsylvania was the only one of the United States 
which at first attempted to establish a single house of assem¬ 
bly ; and Franklin himself was so far carried away by the 
necessary consequences of the principle of the sovereignty 
of the people, as to have concurred in the measure ; but the 
Pennsylvanians were soon obliged to change the law, and to 
create two .houses. Thus the principle of the division of the 
legislative power was finally established, and its necessity 
may henceforward be regarded as a demonstrated truth. 

* As in the state of New York. 





82 


NECESSITY OF 'EXAMINING THE 


This theory, which was nearly unknown to the republics 
of antiquity-—which was introduced into the world almost by 
accident, like so many other great truths—and misunderstood 
by several modern nations, is at length become an axiom in 
the political science of the present age. 


THE EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE STATE. 

Office of Governor in an American State.—The Place he occupies in 
relation to the Legislature.—His Rights and his Duties.—His De¬ 
pendence on the People. 

The executive power of the state may with truth be said to 
be represented by the governor, although he enjoys but a 
portion of its rights. The supreme magistrate, under the 
title of governor, is the official moderator and counsellor of 
the legislature. He is armed with a suspensive veto, which 
allows him to stop, or at least to retard, its movements at 
pleasure. He lays the wants of the country before the legis¬ 
lative body, and points out the means which he thinks may 
be usefully employed in providing for them ; he is the natural 
executor of its decrees in all the undertakings which interest 
the nation at large.* In the absence of the legislature, the 
governor is bound to take all necessary steps to guard the 
state against violent shocks and unforeseen dangers. 

The whole military power of the state is~'at the disposal of 
the governor. He is commander of ,the militia and head of 
the armed force. When the authority, which is by general 
consent awarded to the laws, is disregarded, the governor 
puts himself at the head of the armed force of the state, to 
quell resistance and to restore order. 

Lastly, the governor takes no share in the administration 
of townships and counties, except it be indirectly in ' the 
nomination of justices of the peace, which nomination he has 
not the power to revoke.j* 

The governor is an elected magistrate, and is generally 
chosen for one or two years only ; so that he always con¬ 
tinues to be strictly dependent on the majority who returned 
him. 

* Practically speaking, it is not always the governor who executes 
the plans of the legislature ; it often happens that the latter, in voting 
a measure, names special agents to superintend the execution of it. 

t In some of^ the states the Justices of the peace are not nominated 
by the governor. 








CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


83 


POLITICAL EFFECTS OF THE SYSTEM OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION 
IN THE UNITED STATES. 


Nwessairy Dislinction between the general Centralisation of Govern¬ 
ment. and the Centralisation of the local Administuation.—Local 
Administration not centralized in the United States; great general 
Centralisation of the Government.—Some bad Consequences result¬ 
ing to the United States from the local Administration.—Adminis¬ 
trative Advantages attending the Order of things.—The Power which 
conducts the Government is less regular, less enlightened, less 
learned, but much greater than in Europe.—Political Advantages of 
"this Order of things.—In the United States the Interests of the 
Country are everywhere kept in View.—Support given to the Gov¬ 
ernment by the Community.—Provincial Institutions more necessary 
in Proportion as the social Condition becomes more democratic.— 
Reason of this. 

Centralisation is become a word of general and daily use, 
without any precise meaning being attached to it. Never¬ 
theless, there exist two distinct kinds of centralisation, which 
it is necessary to discriminate with accuracy. 

Certain interests are common to all parts of a nation, such 
as the enactment of its general laws, and the maintenance of 
its foreign relations. Other interests are peculiar to certain 
parts of the nation; such, for instance, as the business of 
different townships. When the power which directs the 
general interests is centred in*^ one place, or in the same 
persons, it constitutes a central government. The power of 
directing partial or local interests, when brought together, in 
like manner constitutes what may be termed a central admi¬ 
nistration. 

Upon some points these two kinds of centralisation coalesce; 
but by classifying the objects which fall more particularly 
within the province of each of them, they may easily be dis¬ 
tinguished. 

It is evident that a central government acquires immense 
power when united to administrative centralisation. Thus 
combined, it accustoms men to set their own will habitually 
and completely aside; to submit, not only for once or upon 
one point, but in every respect, and at all times. Not only, 
tileFore, does the union of power subdue them by force, but 
it affects them in the ordinary habits of life, and influences 
each individual, first separately, and then collectively. 

These'two kinds of centralisation mutually assi.st and at¬ 
tract each other : but they must not be supposed to be inse¬ 
parable. It is impossible to imagine a more completely cen¬ 
tral government than that which existed in France under 




84 


NECESSITY OP EXAMINJNO THE 


Louis XIV.; when the same individual was the author and 
the interpreter of the laws, and being the representative of 
France at home and abroad, he was justified in asserting that 
the state was identified with his person^ Nevertheless, the 
administration was much less centralized under Louis XIV.^ 
than it is at the present day. 

In England the centralisation of the government is carried 
to great perfection ; the state has the compact vigor of a man, 
and by the sole act of its will it puts immense engines in 
motion, and wields or collects the efeu’ts of its authority. In¬ 
deed, I cannot conceive that a nation can enjoy a secure or 
prosperous existence without a powerful centralisation of 
government. But I am of opinion that a central admini<=»tra- 
tion enervates the nations in which it exists by incessantly 
diminishing their public spirit. If such an administration 
succeeds in condensing at a given moment on a given point 
all the disposable resources of a people, it impairs at least the 
renewal of those resources. It may ensure a victory in the 
hour of strife, but it gradually relaxes the sinews of strength. 
It may contribute admirably to the transient greatness of a 
man, but it cannot ensure the durable prosperity of a people. 

If we pay proper attention, we shall find that whenever it 
is said that a state cannot act because it has no central point, 
it is the centralisation of the government in which it is defi¬ 
cient. It is frequently asserted, and we are prepared to as¬ 
sent to the proposition, that the German empire was never 
able to bring all its powers into action. But the reason was, 
that the state has never been able to enforce obedience to its 
general laws, because the several members of that great body 
always claimed the right, or found the means, of refusing 
their co-operation to the representatives' of the ccmnmon au¬ 
thority, even in the affairs which concerned the mass of the 
people ; in other words, because there was no centralisation 
of government. The same remark is applicable to the mid¬ 
dle ages f the cause of all the confusion of feudal society was 
that the control, not only of local but of general interests, 
was divided among a thousand hands, and broken up in a 
thousand different ways; the absence of a central govern¬ 
ment prevented the nations of Europe from advancing with 
energy in any straightforward course. 

We have shown that in the United States no central admi¬ 
nistration, and no dependent series of public functionaries, 
exist. Local authority has been carried to lengths which 
no European nation could endure without great inconveni¬ 
ence, and which have even produced some disadvantageous 




CONDITION OP THE STATED. 


consequences in America. But in the United States the cen¬ 
tralisation of the government is complete; and it would be 
easy to prove that the national power is more compact than it 
has ever been in the old monarchies of Europe. Not only is 
there but one legislative body in each state; not only does 
there exist but one source of political authority j but nume¬ 
rous district assemblies and county courts have in general been 
avoided, lest they should be tempted to exceed their adminis¬ 
trative duties and interfere with the government. In America 
the legislature of each state is supreme ; nothing can impede 
its authority; neither privileges, nor local immunities, nor 
personal influence, nor even the empire of reason, since it re¬ 
presents that majority which claims to be the sole organ of 
reason. Its own determination is, therefore, the only limit to 
its action. In juxtaposition to it, and under its immediate 
control, is the representative of the executive pow'er, whose 
duty it is to constrain the refractory to submit by superior 
force. The only symptom of weakness lies in certain details 
of the action of the government. The American republics 
have no standing armies to intimidate a discontented minority 5 
but as no minority has as yet been reduced to declare open 
War, the necessity of an army has not been felt. The state 
usually employs the officers of the township or the county, to 
deal with the citizens. Thus, for instance, in New England 
the assessor fixes the rate of taxes; the collector receives 
them ; the town treasurer transmits the amount to the public 
treasury ; and the disputes which may arise are brought be¬ 
fore the ordinary courts of justice. This method of collect¬ 
ing taxes is slow as 'well as inconvenient, and it would prove 
a perpetual hindrance to a government whose pecuniary de¬ 
mands were large. ^In general it is desirable that in what¬ 
ever materially affects its existence, the government should 
be served by officers of its own, appointed by itself, remova¬ 
ble at pleasure, and accustomed to rapid methods of proceed¬ 
ing. But it will always be easy for the central government, 
organized as it is in America, to introduce new and more ef¬ 
ficacious modes of action proportioned to its wants. 

The absence of a central government will not, then, as 
has often been 'asserted, prove the destruction of the repub¬ 
lics of the New World ; far from supposing that the Ameri¬ 
can governments are not sufficiently centralized, I shall prove 
hereafter that they are too much so. The legislative bodies 
daily encroach upon the authority of the government, and 
their tendency, like that of the French convention, is to ap¬ 
propriate it entirely to themselves. Under these circum- 



86 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


stances the social power is constantly changing hands, be¬ 
cause it is subordinate to tlie power of the people, which is 
too apt to forget the maxims of wisdom and of foresight in 
the consciousness of its strength : hence arises its danger; 
and thus its vigor, and not its impotence, will probably be 
the cause of its ultimate destruction. , 

The system of local administration produces several dif¬ 
ferent effects in America. The Americans seem to me to 
have outstepped the limits of sound policy, in isolating the 
administration of the government; for order, even in second- 
rate affairs, is a matter of national importance.* As the 
state has no administrative functionaries of its own, stationed 
on different parts of its territory, to whom it can give a com¬ 
mon impulse, the consequence is that it rarely attempts to 
issue any general police regulations. 'The want of these 
regulations is severely felt, and is frequently observed by 
Europeans. The appearance of disorder which prevails on 
the surface, leads them at first to imagine that society is in a 
state of anarchy; nor do they perceive their mistake till 
they have gone deeper into the subject. Certam undertak¬ 
ings are of importance to the whole state; but they cannot 
be put in execution, because there is no national administra¬ 
tion to direct them. Abandoned to the exertions of the 
towns or counties, under the care of elected or temporary 

* The authority which represents the state ought not, I think, to 
waive the right of inspecting the local administration, even when it 
does not interfere more actively. Suppose, for instance, that an agent 
of the government was stationed at some appointed spot, in the coun¬ 
ty, to prosecute the misdemeanors of the town and county officers, 
would not a more uniform order be the result, without in any way 
compromising the independence of the township } Nothing of the 
kind, however, exists in America; there is nothing above the county 
courts, wliich have, as it were, only an accidental cognizance of the 
offences they are meant to repress. 

[This note seems to have been written without reference to the pro¬ 
vision existing, it is believed in every state of the Union, by which a 
local officer is appointed in each county, to conduct all public prose¬ 
cutions at the expense of the state. And in each county, a grand- 
jury is assembled three or four times at least in every year, to which 
all who are aggrieved have free access, and where every complaint, 
particularly those against public officers, which has the least color of 
truth, is sure to be heard and investigated. 

Such an agent as the author suggests would Soon come to be con¬ 
sidered a public informer, the most odious of all characters in the 
United States ; and he would lose all ;fficiency and strength. With 
the provision above mentioned, there is little danger that a citizen, op¬ 
pressed by a public officer, would find any difficulty in becoming his 
own informer, and inducing a rigid inquiry into the alleged miscon¬ 
duct .—American Editor.'] 





CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


87 


agents, they lead to no result, or at least to no durable 
benefit. 

The partisans of centralisation in Europe maintain that 
the government directs the affairs of each locality better than 
the citizens could do it for themselves: this may be true 
when the central power is enlightened, and when the local 
districts are ignorant; when it is as alert as they are slow ; 
when it is accustomed to act, and they to obey. Indeed, it 
is evident that this double tendency must augment with the 
increase of centralisation, and that the readiness of the one, 
and the incapacity of the others, must become more and 
more prominent. But I deny that such is the case when the 
people is as enlightened, as awake to its interests, and as ac¬ 
customed to reflect on them, as the Americans are. I am 
persuaded, on the contrary, that in this case the collective 
strength of the citizens will always conduce more efficaci- 
cously to the public welfare than the authority of the govern¬ 
ment. It is difficult to point out with certainty the means 
of arousing a sleeping population, and of giving it passions 
and knowledge which it does not possess ; it is, I am well 
aware, an arduous task to persuade men to busy themselves 
about their own affairs; and it would frequently be easier to 
interest them in the punctilios of court etiquette than in the 
repairs of their common dwelling. But whenever a central 
administration affects to supersede the persons most inter¬ 
ested, I am inclined to suppose that it is either misled, or de¬ 
sirous to mislead. However enlightened and however skil¬ 
ful a central power may be, it cannot of itself embrace all 
the details of the existence of a great nation. Such vigi¬ 
lance exceeds the powers of man. And when it attempts to 
create and set in motion so many complicated springs, it 
must submit to a very imperfect result, or consume itself in 
bootless efforts. ' . 

Centralisation succeeds more easily,^ indeed, in subjecting 
the external actions of men to a certain uniformity, which at 
last commands our regard, independently of the objects to 
which it is applied, like those devotees who worship the sta¬ 
tue and forget the deity it represents. Centralisation imparts 
without difficulty an,admirable regularity to the routine of 
business ; rules the details of the social police with sagacity ; 
represses the smallest disorder and the most petty misde¬ 
meanors ; maintains society in a statu quo, alike secure from 
improvement and decline ; and perpetuates a drowsy pre¬ 
cision in the conduct of affairs, which is hailed by the heads 
of the administration as a sign of perfect order and public 


m 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


tranquillity f in short, it excels more in prevention than in 
action. Its force deserts it when society is to be disturbed 
or accelerated in its course ; and if once the co-operation of 
private citizens is necessary to the furtherance of its mea¬ 
sures, the secret of its impotence is disclosed. Even while 
it invokes their assistance, it is on the condition that they 
shall act exactly as much as the government chooses, and ex¬ 
actly in the manner it appoints. They are to take charge 
of the details, without aspiring to guide the system ; they 
are to work in a dark and subordinate sphere, and only to 
judge the acts in which they have themselves co-operated, 
by their results. These, however, are not conditions on 
which the alliance of the human will is to be obtained ; its 
carriage must be free, and its actions responsible, or (such 
is the constitution of man) the citizen had rather remain a 
passive spectator than a dependent actor in schemes with 
which he is unacquainted. ^ 

It is undeniable, that the want of those uniform regula¬ 
tions which control the conduct of every inhabitant of France 
is not unfrequently felt in the United States. Gross instances 
of social indifference and neglect are to be met with ; and 
from time to time disgraceful blemishes are seen, in complete 
contrast with the surrounding civilisation. Useful undertak¬ 
ings, which cannot succeed without perpetual attention and 
rigorous exactitude, are very frequently abandoned in the 
end ; for in America, as well as in other countries, the people 
is subject to sudden impulses and momentary exertions. 
The European who is accustomed to find a functionary 
always at hand to interfere with all he undertakes, has some 
difficulty in accustoming himself to the complex mechanism 
of the administration of the townships. In general it may 
be affirmed that the lesser details of the police, which render 
life easy and comfortable, are neglected in America ; but 
that the essential guarantees of man in society are as strong 
there as elsewhere. In America the power which conducts 
the government is far less regular, less enlightened, and less 
learned, but a hundredfold more authoritative, than in Eu- 

* China appears to me to present the most perfect instance of that 
species of Well-being which a completely central administration may 
furnish to the nations among W'hich it exists. Travellers assure us 
that the Chinese have peace without happiness, industry without inr- 
provement, stability without strength, and public order without public 
morality. The condition of society is always tolerable, never excel¬ 
lent. I am convinced that, when China is opened to European ob¬ 
servation, it will be found to contain the most perfect model of a cen¬ 
tral administration which exists in the universe. 


CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


89 


rope. In no country in the world do the citizens make such 
exertions for the common weal ; and I am acquainted with 
no people which has established schools as numerous and as 
efficacious, places of public worship better suited to the wants 
of the inhabitants, or roads kept in better repair. Uniformity 
or permanence of design, the minute arrangement of details,* 
and the perfection of an ingenious administration, must not 
be sought for in the United States; but it will be easy to 
find, on the other hand, the symptoms of a power, which, if 
it is somewhat barbarous, is at least robust; and of an exist¬ 
ence,. wliich is checkered with accidents indeed, but cheered 
at the same time by animation and effort. 

Granting for an instant that the villages and counties of 
the United States would be more usefully governed by a 
remote authority, which they had never seen, than by func¬ 
tionaries taken from the midst of them—admitting, for the 
sake of argument, that the country would be more secure, 
and the resources of society better employed, if the whole 
administration centred in a single arm, still the 'political ad¬ 
vantages which the Americans derive from thfeir system would 
induce me to prefer it to the contrary plan. It profits me 
but little, after all, that a vigilant authority protects the tran¬ 
quillity of my. pleasures, and constantly averts all danger 


* A writer of talent, who, in the comparison which he has drawn 
between the finances of France and those of the United States, has 
proved that ingenuity cannot always supply the place of a knowledge 
of facts, very justly reproaches the Americans for the sort of confusion 
which exists in the accounts of the expenditure in the townships; 
and after giving the model of a departmental budget in France, he 
adds : “ We are indebted to centralisation, that admirable invention of 
a great man, for the uniform order and method which prevail alike in 
all the municipal budgets, from the largest town to the humblest com¬ 
mune.” Whatever may be my admiration of this result, when I see 
the communes of France, with their excellent system of accounts, 
plunged in the grossest ignorance of their true interests, and aban¬ 
doned to so incorrigible an apathy that they seem to vegetate rather 
than to live; when, on the other hand, I observe the activity, the 
information, and the spirit of enterprise which keeps society in per¬ 
petual labor, in those American townships whose budgets are drawn 
up with small method and with still less uniformity, I am struck by 
the spectacle ; for to my mind the end of a good government is to 
ensure the welfare of a people, and not to establish order and regu¬ 
larity in the midst of its misery and its distress. I am therefore led to 
suppose that the prosperity of the American townships and the appa¬ 
rent confusion of their accounts, the distress of the French communes 
and the perfection of their budget, may be attributable to the same 
cause. At any rate I am suspicious of a benefit which is united to so 
many evilSj and I am not averse to an evil which is compensated by so 
many benefits. 


9 * 




90 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


from my path, without my care or my concern, if the same 
authority is the absolute mistress of my liberty and of my 
life, and if it so monopolises all the energy of existence, that 
when it languishes everything languishes around it, that , 
when it sleeps everything must sleep, that when it dies the 
state itself must perish. 

In certain countries of Europe the natives consider them¬ 
selves as a kind of settlers, indifferent to the fate of the spot 
upon which they live. The greatest changes are effected 
without their concurrence and (unless chance may have 
apprised them of the event) without their knowledge ; nay 
more, the citizen is unconcerned as to the condition of his 
village, the police of his street, the repairs of the church or 
the parsonage ; for he looks upon all these things as un¬ 
connected with himself, and as the property of a powerful 
stranger whom he calls the government. He has only a life- 
interest in these possessions, and he entertains no notions of 
ownership or of improvement. This want of interest in his 
own affairs goes so far, that if his own safety or that of his 
children is endangered, instead of trying to avert the-peril, 
he will fold his arms, and wait till the nation comes to his 
assistance. This same individual, who has so completely 
sacrificed his own free will, has no natural propensity to 
obedience ; he cowers, it is true, before the pettiest officer; 
but he braves the law with the spirit of a conquered foe as 
soon as its superior force is removed : his oscillations between 
servitude and license are perpetual. When a nation has 
arrived at this state, it must either change its customs and its 
laws, or perish: the source of.public virtue is dry; and 
though it may contain subjects, the race of citizens is extinct. 
Such communities are a natural prey to foreign conquest; 
and if they do not disappear from the scene of life, it is be¬ 
cause they are surrounded by other nations similar or infe¬ 
rior to themselves; it is because the instinctive feeling of 
their country’s claims still _exists in their hearts ; and because 
an involuntary pride in the name it bears, or the vage remi¬ 
niscence of its by-gone-fame, suffices to give them the impulse 
of self-preservation. _ 

Nor can the prodigious exertions made by certain people 
in the defence of a country, in which they may almost be 
said to have lived as aliens, be adduced in favor of such a 
system; for it will be found that in these cases their main 
incitement was religion. " The permanence, the glory, and 
the prosperity of the nation, were become parts of their faith ; 
and in defending the country they inhabited, they defended 






CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


91 


that holy city of which they were all citizens. The Turkish 
tribes have never taken an active share in the conduct of the 
affairs of society, but they accomplished stupendous enter¬ 
prises as long as the victories of the sultans were the triumphs 
of the Mohammedan faith. In the present age they are in 
rapid decay, because their religion is departing, and despo- 
tism only remains. Montesquieu, who attributed to absolute 
power an authority peculiar to itself, did it, as I conceive, 
undeserved honor; for despotism, taken by itself, can pro¬ 
duce no durable results. On close inspection we shall find 
that religion, and not fear, has ever been the cause of the 
long-lived prosperity of absolute governments. Whatever 
exertions may be made, no true power can be founded among 
men wliich does not depend upon the free union of their incli¬ 
nations ; and patriotism and religion are the only two motives 
in the world which can permanently direct the whole of a 
body politic to one end. 

Laws cannot succeed in rekindling the ardor of an extin¬ 
guished faith; but men may be interested in the fate of their 
country by the laws. By this influence, the vague impulse 
of patriotism, which never abandons the human heart, may 
be directed and revived : and if it be connected with the 
thoughts, the passions and daily habits of life, it may be con¬ 
solidated into a durable and rational sentiment. Let it not 
be said that the time for the experiment is already past; for 
the old age of nations is not like the old age of men, and 
every fresh generation is a new people ready for the care of 
the legislator. 

It is not the administrative, but the political effects of the 
local system that I most admire in America. In the United 
States the interests of the country are everywhere kept in 
view ; they are an object of solicitude to the people of the 
whole Union, and every citizen is as warmly attached to 
them as if they were his own. He takes pride in the glory 
of his nation ; he boasts of his success, to which he conceives 
himself to have contributed ; and he rejoices in the general 
prosperity by which he profits. The feeling he entertains 
toward the state is analogous to that which unites him to his 
family, and it is by a kind of egotism that he interests him¬ 
self in the welfare of his country. 

The European generally submits to a public officer because 
he represents a superior force ; but to an American he repre¬ 
sents a right. In America it may be said that no one renders 
obedience to man, but to justice and to law. If the opinion 
which the citizen entertains of himself is exaggerated, it is 





92 


NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE 


at least salutary ; he unhesitatingly confides in his own pow- 
ers, which appear to him to be all-sufficient. When a private 
individual meditates an undertaking, however directly con¬ 
nected it may be with the welfare of society, he never thinks 
of soliciting the co-operation of the government: but he 
publishes his plan, offers to execute it himself, courts the 
assistance of other individuals, and struggles manfully against 
all obstacles. Undoubtedly he is less successful than the 
state might have been in his position ; but in the end, the 
sum of these private undertakings far exceeds all that the 
government could effect. 

As the administrative authority is within the reach of the 
citizens, whom it in some degree represents, it excites neither 
their jealousy nor their hatred : as its resources are limited, 
every one feels that he must not rely solely on its assistance. 
Thus when the administration thinks fit to interfere, it is not 
abandoned to itself as in Europe ; the duties of the private 
citizens are not supposed to have lapsed because the state 
assists in their fulfilment; but every one is ready, on the 
contrary, to guide and to support it. This action of individ¬ 
ual exertions, joined to that of the public authorities, fre¬ 
quently performs what the most energetic central adminis¬ 
tration would be unable to execute. It would be easy to 
adduce several facts in proof of what I advance, but I had 
rather give only one, with w'hich I am more thoroughly ac¬ 
quainted.* In America, the means which the authorities 
have at their disposal for the discovery of crimes and the 
arrest of criminals are few. A state police does not exist, 
and passports are unknown. The criminal police of the 
United States cannot be compared with that of France; the 
magistrates and public prosecutors are not numerous, and the 
examinations of prisoners are rapid and oral. Nevertheless 
in no country does crime more rarely elude punishment. 
The reason is that every one conceives himself to be interested 
in furnishing evidence of the act committed, and in stopping 
the delinquent. During my stay in the United States, I saw 
the spontaneous formation of committees for the pursuit and 
prosecution of a man who had committed a great crime in a 
certain county. In Europe a criminal is an unhappy being, 
who is struggling for his life against the ministers of justice, 
while the population is merely a spectator of the conflict: in 
America he is looked upon as' an enemy of the human race, 
and the whole of mankind is against him. 


* See Appendix I. 



CONDITION OF THE STATES. 


93 


I believe that provincial institutions are useful to all na¬ 
tions, but nowhere do they appear to me to be more indis¬ 
pensable than among a democratic people. In an aristocracy, 
order can always be maintained in the midst of liberty ; and 
as the rulers have a great deal to lose, order is to them a first- 
rate consideration. In like manner an aristocracy protects 
the people from the excesses of despotism, because it always 
possesses an organized power ready to resist a despot. But 
a democracy without provincial institutions has no security 
against these evils. How can a populace, unaccustomed to 
freedom in small concerns, learn to use it temperately in 
great affairs ? What resistance can be offered to tyranny in 
a country where every private individual is impotent, and 
where the citizens are united by no common tie ? Those 
who dread the license of the mob, and those who fear the 
rule of absolute' power, ought alike to desire the progressive 
growth of provincial liberties. ^ 

On the other hand, I am convinced that democratic nations 
are most exposed to fall beneath the yoke of a central ad¬ 
ministration, for several reasons, among which is the fol¬ 
lowing :— . > 

The constant tendency of these nations is to concentrate all 
the strength of the government in the hands of the only power 
which directly represents the people: because, beyond the 
people nothing is to be perceived but a mass of equal indivi¬ 
duals confounded together. But when the same ^power is 
already in possession of all the attributes of the government, 
it can scarcely refrain from penetrating into the details of the 
administration ; and an opportunity of doing so is sure to pre¬ 
sent itself in the end, as w'as the case in France. In the 
French revolution there were two impulses in opposite direc¬ 
tions, which must never be confounded; the one was favora¬ 
ble to liberty, the other to despotism. Under the ancient 
monarchy the king was the sole author of the laws; and be¬ 
low the power of the sovereign, certain vestiges of provincial 
institutions half-destroyed, were still distinguishable. These 
provincial institutions were incoherent, ill-compacted, and fre¬ 
quently absurd; in the hands of the aristocracy they had 
sometimes been converted into instruments of oppression. 
The revolution declared itself the enemy of royalty and of 
provincial institutions at the same time ; it confounded all 
that had preceded it—despotic power and the checks to its 
abuses—in an indiscriminate hatred ; and its tendency was 
at once to republicanism and to centralisation. This double 
character of the French revolution is a fact which has been 



94 


JUDICIAL POWER IN THE UNITED STATES, 


adroitly handled by the friends of absolute power. Can they 
be accused of laboring in the cause of despotism, when they 
are defending of the revolution ?* In this manner popularity 
may be conciliated with hostility to the rights of the people, 
and the secret slave of tyranny may be the professed admirer 
of freedom. i . 

I have visited the two nations in which the system of pro¬ 
vincial liberty has been most perfectly established, and I have 
listened to the opinions of different parties in those-countries. 
In America I met with men who secretly aspired to destroy 
the democratic institutions of the Union ; in England, I found 
others who attacked aristocracy openly; but I know of no 
one who does not regard provincial independence, as a great 
benefit. In both countries I have heard a thousand different 
causes assigned for the evils of the state ; but the local sys¬ 
tem was never mentioned among them. I have heard citizens 
attribute the power and prosperity of their country to a mul¬ 
titude of reasons : but they all placed the advantages of local 
institutions in the foremost rank. 

Am I to suppose that when men who are naturally so 
divided on religious opinions, and on political theories, agree 
on one point (and that, one of which they have daily experi¬ 
ence), they are all in error ? The only nations which deny 
the utility of provincial liberties are those which have fewest 
of them ; in other words, those who are unacquainted with 
the institution are the only persons who pass a censure 
upon it. . . . ' 


CHAPTER VI. 

JUDICIAL POWER IN THE UNITED STATES, AND ITS INFLUENCE 
ON POLITICAL SOCIETY. 

The Anglo-Americans have retained the "Characteristics of judicial 
Power which are common to all Nations.—They have, however, 
made it a powerful political Orscan.—How.—In what the Judicial 
System of the Anglo-Americans differs from that of all other Na¬ 
tions.—Why the American Judges have the right of declaring the 
Laws to be Unconstitutional.—How they use this Right._Precau¬ 

tions taken by the Legislator to prevent its abuse, ° 

1 have thought it essential to devote a separate chapter to the 
judicial authorities of the United States, lest their great poli- 

* See Appendix K, 



AND ITS INFLUENCE ON POLITICAL SOCIETY. 95 

tical importance should be lessened in the reader’s eyes by a 
merely incidental mention of them. Confederations have ex¬ 
isted in other countries beside America ; and republics have 
not been established on the shores of the New World alone : 
the representative system of government has been adopted in 
several states of Europe ; but I am not aware that any nation 
of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power on the 
principle adopted by the Americans. The judicial organiza¬ 
tion of the United States is the institution which the stranger 
has the greatest difficulty in understanding. He hears the 
authority of a judge invoked in the political occurrences of 
every day, and he naturally concludes that in the United 
States the judges are important political functionaries; never¬ 
theless, when he examines the nature of the tribunals, they 
offer nothing which is contrary to the usual habits and privi¬ 
leges of those bodies; and the magistrates seem to him to in¬ 
terfere in public affairs" by chance, but by a chance which 
recurs every day. 

When the Parliament of Paris remonstrated, or refused to 
enregister an edict, or when it summoned a functionary 
accused of malversation to its bar, its political influence as a 
judicial body was clearly visible ; but nothing of the kind is 
to be seen in the United States. The Americans have re¬ 
tained all the u>rdinary characteristics of judicial authority, 
and have carefully restricted its action to the ordinary circle 
of its functions. 

The first characteristic of judicial power in all nations is 
the duty of arbitration. But rights must be contested in 
order to warrant the interference of a tribunal; and an action 
must be brought to obtain the decision of a judge. As long, 
therefore, as a law is uncontested, the judicial authority is not 
called upon to discuss it, and it may exist without being per¬ 
ceived. When a judge in a given case attacks a law relating 
to that case, he extends the circle of his customary duties, 
without, however, stepping beyond itsince he is in some 
measure obliged to decide upon the law, in order to decide 
the case. But if he pronounces upon a law without resting 
upon a case, he clearly steps beyond his sphere, and invades 
that of the legislative authority. 

The second characteristic of judicial power is; that it pro¬ 
nounces on special cases, and not • upon general principles... 
If a judge, in deciding a particular point, destroys a general 
principle, by passing a judgment which tends to reject alhthe 
inferences from that principloj and consequently to annul it, 
he remains within the ordinary limits of his functions. But 


96 JUDICIAL POWER IN THE UNITED STATES, 

9 

if he directly attacks a general principle without having a 
particular case in view, he leaves the circle in which all na¬ 
tions have agreed to confine his authority ; he assumes a 
more important, and perhaps a more useful influence than 
that of the magistrate, but he ceases to represent the judicial 
power. 

The third characteristic of the judicial power is its inability 
to act unless it is appealed to, or until it has taken cognizance 
of an affair. This characteristic is less general than the other 
two; but notwithstanding the exceptions, I think it may be 
regarded as essential. The judicial power is by its nature 
devoid of action; it must be put in motion in order to pro¬ 
duce a result. When it is called upon to repress a crime, it 
punishes the criminal; when a wrong is to be redressed, it is 
ready to redress it; when an act requires interpretation, it is 
prepared to interpret it; but it does not pursue criminals, 
hunt out wrongs, or examine into evidence of its own accord. 
A judicial functionary who should open proceedings, and 
usurp the censorship of the laws, would in some measure do 
violence to the passive nature of his authority. 

The Americans have retained these three distinguishing 
characteristics of ,the judicial power; an American judge 
can only pronounce a decision when litigation has arisen, he 
is only conversant with special cases, and he cannot act until 
the cause has been duly brought before the court. His posi¬ 
tion is therefore perfectly similar to that of the magistrate of 
other nations ; and he is nevertheless invested with immense- 
political power. If the sphere of his authority and his means 
of action are the same as those of other judges, it may be 
asked whence he derives a power which they do not possess. 
The cause of this difference lies in the simple fact that the 
Americans have acknowledged the right of the judges to 
found their decisions on the constitution, rather than on the 
laws. In other words, they have left them at liberty not to 
apply such laws as may appear to them to be unconstitutional. 

I am aware that a similar right has been claimed—but 
claimed in vain—by courts of justice in other countries; but 
in America it is recognized by all the authorities; and not a 
party, nor so much as an individual, is found to contest it. 
This fact can only be explained by ther principles of the Ame¬ 
rican constitution. In France the constitution is (or at least 
is supposed-to be) immutable; and the received theory is 
that no power has the right of changing any part of it. In 
England, the parliament has an acknowledged right to modify 
the constitution : as, therefore, the constitution may undergo 


AND ITS INFLUENCE ON POLITICAL SOCIETY. 


97 


perpetual changes, it does not in reality exist; the parliament 
is at once a legislative and a constituent assembly. The po¬ 
litical theories of America are more simple and more rational. 
An American constitution is not supposed to be immutable 
as in France; nor is it susceptible of modification by the 
ordinary powers of society as in England. It constitutes a 
detached whole, which, as it represents the determination of 
the whole people, is no less binding on the legislator than on 
the private citizen, but which may be altered by the will of 
the people in predetermined cases, according to established 
rules. In America the constitution may, therefore, vary, but 
as long as it exists it is the origin of all authority, and the 
sole vehicle of the predominating force.* 

It is easy to perceive in what manner these differences must 
act upon the position and the rights of the judicial bodies in 
the three countries I have cited. If in France the tribunals 
were authorized to disobey the laws on the ground of their 
being opposed to the constitution, the supreme power would in 
fact be placed in their hands, since they alone would have 
the right of interpreting a constitution, the clauses of which 
can be modified by no authority. They would, therefore, take 
the place of the nation, and exercise as absolute a sway over 
society as the inherent weakness of judicial power would 
allow them to do. Undoubtedly, as the French judges are 
incompetent to declare a law to be unconstitutional, the power 
of changing the constitution is indirectly given to the legisla¬ 
tive body, since no legal barrier would oppose the alterations 
which it might prescribe. But it is better to grant the power 
of changing the constitution of the people to men who repre¬ 
sent (however imperfectly) the will of the people, than to 
men who represent no one but themselves. 

It would be still more unreasonable to invest the English 
judges with the right of resisting the decisions of the legis¬ 
lative body, since the parliament which makes the laws also 
makes the constitution ; and consequently a law emanating 
from the three powers of the state can in no case be uncon¬ 
stitutional. But neither of these remarks is applicable to 
America.f 

In the United States the constitution governs the legislator 
as much as the private citizen : as it is the first of laws, it 
cannot be modified by a law ; and it is therefore just that the 
tribunals should obey the constitution, in preference to any 
law. This condition is essential to the power of the judica- 

* See Appendix L. 


10 


t See Appendix M. 




98 JUDICIAL TOWER OF THE UNITED STATES, 

ture ; for to select that legal obligation by which he is most 
strictly bound, is the natural right of every magistrate. 

In France the constitution is also the first of laws, and the 
judges have the same right to take it as the ground of their 
decisions; but were they to exercise this right, they must 
perforce encroach on rights more sacred than their own, 
namely, on those of society, in whose name they are acting. 
In this case the state motive clearly prevails over the motives 
of an individual. In America, where the nation can always 
reduce its magistrates to obedience by changing its constitu¬ 
tion, no danger of this kind is to be feared. Upon this point 
therefore the political and the logical reason agree, and the 
people as well as the judges preserve their privileges. 

Whenever a law which the judge holds.to be unconstitu¬ 
tional is argued in a tribunal of the United States, he may re¬ 
fuse to admit it as a rule ; this power is the only one which 
is peculiar to the American magistrate, but it givea^ rise to 
immense political influence. Few laws can ,escape the 
searching analysis ; for there are few which are not prejudi¬ 
cial to some private interest or other, and none which may 
not be brought before a court of justice by the choice of 
parties, or by the necessity of the case. But from the time 
that a judge has refused to apply any given law in a case, 
that law loses a portion of its moral sanction. The persons 
to whose interest it is prejudicial, learn that means exist of 
evading its authority ; and similar suits are multiplied, until 
it becomes powerless. One of two alternatives must then be 
resorted to: the people must alter the constitution, or the le¬ 
gislature must repeal the law. 

The political power which the Americans have intrusted to 
their courts of justice is therefore immense ; but the evils of 
this power are considerably diminished, by the obligation 
which has been imposed of attacking the laws through the 
courts of justice alone. If the judge had been empowered 
to contest the laws on the ground of theoretical generalities ; 
if he had been enabled to open an attack or to pass a censure 
on the legislator, he would have played a prominent part in 
the political sphere ; and as the champion or the antagonist 
of a party, he would have arrayed the hostile passions of the 
nation in the conflict. But when a judge contests a law, ap¬ 
plied to some particular case in an obscure proceeding, the 
importance of his attack is concealed from the public gaze; 
his decision bears upon the interest of an individual, and if the 
law is slighted, it is only collaterally. Moreover, although it 
be censured, it is not abolished ; its moral force may be dimi- 


AND ITS INFLUENCE ON POLITICAL SOCIETY. 


99 


nished, but its cogency is by no means suspended ; and its 
final destruction can only be accomplished by the reiterated 
attacks of judicial functionaries. It will readily be under¬ 
stood that by connecting the censorship of the laws with the 
private interests of members of the community, and by inti¬ 
mately uniting the prosecution of the law with the prosecu- 
tion of an individual, the legislation is protected from wanton 
assailants, and from the daily aggressions of party spirit. 
The errors of the legislator are exposed whenever their evil 
consequences are most felt; and it is always a positive and 
appreciable fact which serves as the basis of a prosecution. 

I am inclined to believe this practice of the American 
courts to be at once the most favorable to liberty as well as to 
public order. If the judge could only attack the legislator 
openly and directly, he would sometimes be afraid to oppose 
any resistance to his will; and at other moments party spirit 
might encourage him to brave it every day. The laws would 
consequently be attacked when the power from which they 
emanate is weak, and obeyed when it is strong. That is to 
say, when it would be useful to respect them, they would be 
contested; and when it would be easy to convert them into 
an instrument of oppression, they would be respected. But 
the American judge is brought into the political arena inde¬ 
pendently of his own will. He only judges the law be¬ 
cause he is obliged to judge a case. The political question 
which he is called upon to resolve is connected with the inte¬ 
rest of the parties, and he cannot refuse to decide it without 
abdicating the duties of his post. He performs his functions 
as a citizen by fulfilling the strict duties which belong to his 
profession as a magistrate. It is true that upon this system 
the judicial censorship which is exercised by the courts of 
justice over the legislation cannot extend to all laws indis¬ 
criminately, inasmuch as some of them can never give rise 
to that precise species of contestation which is termed a law¬ 
suit ; and even when such a contestation is possible, it may 
happen that no one cares to bring it before a court of justice. 
The Americans have often felt this disadvantage, but they 
have left the remedy incomplete, lest they should give it effi¬ 
cacy which in some cases might prove dangerous. Within 
these limits, the power vested in the American courts of jus¬ 
tice of pronouncing a statute to be unconstitutional, forms one 
of the most powerful barriers which have ever been devised 
against the tyranny of political assemblies. 



100 


JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES, 


OTHER POWERS GRANTED TO THE AMERICAN JUDGES. 

In the United States all the Citizens have the Right of indicting the 
public Functionaries before the ordinary Tribunals.—How they use 
this Right—Art. 75 of the An VIII.—The Americans and the English 
cannot understand the Purport of this Clause. 

It is perfectly natural that in a free country like America all 
the citizens should have the right of indicting public func¬ 
tionaries before the ordinary tribunals, and that all the judges 
should have the power of punishing public offences. The 
right granted to the courts of justice, of judging the agents of 
the executive government, when they have violated the laws, 
is so natural a one that it cannot be looked upon as an extra¬ 
ordinary privilege. Nor do the springs of government appear 
to me to be weakened in the United States by the custom 
which renders all public officers responsible to the judges of 
the land. The Americans seem, on the contrary, to have 
increased by this means that respect which is due to the 
authorities, and at the same time to have rendered those who 
are in power more scrupulous of offending public opinion. I 
was struck by the small number of political trials which occur 
in the United States ; but I have no difficulty in accounting 
for this circumstance. A lawsuit, of whatever nature it may 
be, is always a difficult and expensive undertaking. It is 
easy to attack a public man in a journal, but the motives 
which can warrant an action at law must be serious. A 
solid ground of complaint must therefore exist, to induce an 
individual to prosecute a public officer, and public officers are 
careful not to furnish these grounds of complaint, when they 
are afraid of being prosecuted. 

This does not depend upon the republican form of the 
American institutions, for the same facts present themselves 
in England. These two nations do not regard the impeach¬ 
ment of the principal officers of state as a sufficient guarantee 
of their independence. But they hold that the right of minor 
prosecutions, which are within the reach of the whole com¬ 
munity, is a better pledge of freedom than those great judicial 
actions which are rarely employed until it is too late. 

In the middle ages, when it was very difficult to overtake 
offenders, the judges inflicted the most dreadful tortures on 
the few who were arrested, which by no means diminished 
the number of crimes. It has since been discovered that 
when justice is more certain and more mild, it is at the same 
time more efficacious. The English and the Americans hold 


AND ITS INFLUENCE ON POLITICAL SOCIETY. 


101 


that tyranny and oppression are to be treated like any other 
crime, by lessening the penalty and, facilitating conviction. 

In the year VIII. of the French republic, a constitution was 
drawn up in which the following clause was introduced: 
“ Art. 75. All the agents of the government below the rank 
of ministers can only be prosecuted for offences relating to 
their several functions by virtue of a decree of the conseil 
d’etat; in which case*the prosecution takes place before the 
ordinary tribunals.” This clause survived the “ Constitution 
de Fan VIIL,” and it is still maintained in spite of the just 
complaints of the nation. I have always found the utmost 
difficulty in explaining its meaning to Englishmen or Ameri¬ 
cans. They were at once led to conclude that the conseil 
d’etat in France was a great tribunal, established in the 
centre of the kingdom, which exercised a preliminary and 
somewhat tyrannical jurisdiction in all political causes. But 
when 1 told them that the conseil d’etat was not a judicial 
body, in the common sense of the term, but an administrative 
council composed of men dependent on the crown—so that 
the king, after having ordered one of his servants, called a 
prefect, to commit an injustice, has the power of commanding 
another of his servants, called a councillor of state, to prevent 
the former from being punished—when I demonstrated to 
them that the citizen who had been injured by the order of 
the sovereign is obliged to solicit from the sovereign permission 
to obtain,redress, they refused to credit so flagrant an abuse, 
and were tempted to accuse me of falsehood or of ignorance. 
It frequently happened before the revolution that a parliament 
issued a warrant against a public officer who had committed 
an offence ; and sometimes the proceedings were annulled by 
the authority of the crown. Despotism then displayed itself 
openly, and obedience was extorted by force. We have then 
retrograded from the point which our forefathers had reached, 
since we allow things to pass under the color of justice and 
the sanction of the law, which violence alone could impose 
upon them. 

10 * 


f 




102 


POLITICAL JURISDICTION 


CHAPTER VII. 

POLITICAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. 

Definition of political Jurisdiction.—What is understood by political 
Jurisdiction in France, in England, and in the United States.—In 
America the political Judge can only pass Sentence on public Offi¬ 
cers.—He more frequently passes a Sentence of Removal from Office 
than a Penalty.—Political Jurisdiction, as it Exists in the United 
States, is, notwithstanding its Mildness, and perhaps in Consequence 
of that Mildness, a most powerful Instrument in the Hands of the 
Majority. 

I UNDERSTAND, by political jurisdiction, that temporary right of 
pronouncing a legal decision with which a political body may 
be invested. 

In absolute governments no utility can accrue from the 
introduction of extraordinary forms of procedure ; the prince, 
in whose name an offender is prosecuted, is as much the 
sovereign of the courts of justice as of everything else, and 
the idea which is entertained of his power is of itself a suffi¬ 
cient security. The only thing he has to fear is, that the 
external formalities of justice may he neglected, and that his 
authority may be dishonored, from a wish to render it more 
absolute. But in most free countries, in which the majority 
can never exercise the same influence upon the tribunals as 
an absolute monarch, the judicial power has occasionally been 
vested for a time in the representatives of society. It has 
been thought better to introduce a temporary confusion 
between the functions of the different authorities, than to 
violate the necessary principle of the unity of government. 

England, France, and the United States, have established 
this political jurisdiction in their laws ^ and it is curious to 
examine the different use which these three great nations have 
made of the principle. In England and in France the house 
of lords and the chambre des pairs constitute the highest 
criminal court of their respective nations ; and although they 
do not habitually try all political offences, they are competent 
to try them all. Another political body enjoys the right of 
impeachment before tbe house of lords : the only difference 
which exists between the two countries in this respect is, that 
in England the commons may impeach whomsoever they 
please before the lords, while in France the deputies can only 
employ this mode of prosecution against the ministers of the 
crown. 



IN THE UNITED STATES. 


103 

In 'r)oth countries the upper house make use oF all the ex¬ 
isting penal laws of the nation to punish the delinquents. 

In the United States, as v.^ell as in Europe, one branch of 
the legislature is authorized to impeach, and another to judge: 
the house of representatives arraigns the offender, and the 
senate awards his sentence. But the senate can only try 
such persons as are brought before it by the house of repre¬ 
sentatives, and those persons must belong to the class of 
public functionaries. Thus the jurisdiction of the senate is 
less extensive than that of the peers of France, while the 
right of impeachment by the representatives is more general 
than that of the deputies. But the great difference which 
exists between Europe and America is, that in Europe politi¬ 
cal tribunals are empowered to inflict all the dispositions of 
the penal code, while in America, when they have deprived 
the offender of his official rank, and have declared him inca¬ 
pable of filling any political office for the future, their juris¬ 
diction terminates and that of the ordinary tribunals begins. 

Suppose, for instance, that the president of the United 
States has committed the crime of high treason ; the house of 
representatives impeaches him, and the senate degrades him ; 
he must then be tried by a jury, which alone can deprive him 
of his liberty or his life. This accurately illustrates the 
subject we are treating. The political jurisdiction which is 
established by the laws of Europe is intended to try great 
offenders, whatever may be their birth, their rank, or their 
powers in the state ; and to this end all the privileges of the 
courts of justice are temporarily extended to a great political 
assembly. The legislator is then transformed into a magis¬ 
trate : he is called upon to admit, to distinguish, and to punish 
the offence ; and as he exercises all the authority of a judge, 
the law restricts him to the observance of all the duties 
of that high office, and of all the formalities of justice. When a 
public functionary is impeached before an English or a French 
political tribunal, and is found guilty, the sentence deprives 
him ipso facto of his functions, and it may pronounce him to 
be incapable of resuming them or any others for the future. 
But in this case the political interdict is a consequence of the 
sentence, and not the sentence itself. In Europe the sentence 
of a political tribunal is therefore to be regarded as a judicial 
verdict, rather than as an administrative measure. In the 
United States the contrary takes place ; and although the 
decision of the senate is judicial in its form, since the senators 
are obliged to comply with the practices and formalities of a 
court of justice; altliough it is judicial in respect to the 







104 


POLITICAL JURISDICTION 


motives on which it I's founded, since the senate is in general 
obliged to take an offence at common law as the basis of its 
sentence ; nevertheless the object of the proceeding is purely 
administrative. 

If it had been the intention of the American legislator to 
invest a political body with great judicial authority, its ac¬ 
tion would not have been limited to the circle of public func¬ 
tionaries, since the most dangerous enemies of the state may 
be in the possession of no functions at all ; and this is espe¬ 
cially true in republics, where party favor is the first of 
authorities, and where the strength of many a leader is in¬ 
creased by his exercising no legal power. If it had been the 
intention of the American legislator to give society the means 
of repressing state offences by exemplary punishment, ac¬ 
cording to the practice of ordinary judgment, the resources 
of the penal code would all have been placed at the disposal 
of the political tribunals. But the weapon with which they 
are intrusted is an imperfect one, and it can never reach the 
most dangerous offenders; since men who aim at the entire 
subversion of the laws are not likely to murmur at a political 
interdict. 

The main object of the political jurisdiction which obtains 
in the United States is, therefore, to deprive the citizen of an 
authority which he has used amiss, and to prevent him from 
ever acquiring it again. This is evidently an administra¬ 
tive measure sanctioned by the formalities of judicial investi¬ 
gation. In this matter the Americans have created a mixed 
system: they have surrounded the act which removes a pub¬ 
lic functionary with the securities of a political trial; and 
they have deprived all political condemnations of their sever¬ 
est penalties. Every link of the system may easily be 
traced from this point; we at once perceive why the Ameri¬ 
can constitutions subject all the civil functionaries to the 
jurisdiction of the senate, while the military, whose crimes 
are nevertheless more formidable, are exempt from that tri¬ 
bunal. In the civil service none of the American functiona¬ 
ries can be said to be removeable ; the places which some 
of them occupy are inalienable, and the others derive their 
rights from a power which cannot be abrogated. It is there¬ 
fore necessary to try them all in order to deprive them of 
their authority. But military officers are dependent on the 
chief magistrate of the state, who is himself a civil function¬ 
ary ; and the decision which condemns him is a blow upon 
them all. ' 

If we now compare the American and European systems. 


!N THE UNITED STATES. 


105 


We shall meet with differences no less striking in the differ¬ 
ent effects which each of them produces or may produce. In 
France and in England the jurisdiction of political bodies is 
looked upon as an extraordinary resource, which is only to 
be employed in order to rescue society from unwonted dan¬ 
gers. It is not to be denied that these tribunals, as they are 
constituted in Europe, are apt to violate the conservative 
principle of the balance of power in the state, and to threaten 
incessantly the lives and liberties of the subject. The same 
political jurisdiction in the United States is only indirectly 
hostile to the balance of power; it cannot menace the lives 
of the citizens, and it does not hover, as in Europe, over the 
heads of the community, since those only who have before¬ 
hand submitted to its authority upon accepting office are 
exposed to its severity. It is at the same time less formida¬ 
ble and less efficacious; indeed, it has not been considered 
by the legislators of the United States as a remedy for the 
more violent evils of society, but as an ordinary means of 
conducting the government. In this respect it probably ex¬ 
ercises more real influence on the social body in America 
than in Europe. We must not be misled by the apparent 
mildness of the American Legislation in all that relates to 
political jurisdiction. It is to be observed, in the first place, 
that in the United States the tribunal which passes sentence 
is composed of the same elements, and subject to the same 
influences, as the body which impeaches the offender, and 
that this uniformity gives an almost irresistible impulse to 
the vindictive passions of parties. If political judges in the 
United States cannot inflict such heavy penalties as those of 
Europe, there is the less chance of their acquitting a pris¬ 
oner ; and the conviction, if it is less formidable, is more 
certain. The principal object of the political tribunals of 
Europe is to punish the offender; the purpose of those in 
America is to deprive him of his authority. A political con¬ 
demnation in the United States may, therefore, be looked 
upon as a preventive measure ; and there is no reason for 
restricting the judges to the exact definitions of criminal law. 
Nothing can be more alarming than the excessive latitude 
with which political offences are described in the laws of 
America. Article II., section iv., of the constitution of the 
United States runs thus : “ The president, vice-president, and 
all the civil officers of the United States shall be removed 
from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, 
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,^^ Many of 
the constitutions of the states are even less explicit. “ Pub- 






106 


POLITICAL JURISDICTION 


lie officers,” says the constitution of Massachusetts,* “ shall 
be impeached for misconduct or mal-administration.” Tho 
constitution of Virginia declares that all the civil officers who 
shall have offended against the state by mal-administration, 
corruption, or other high crimes, may be impeached by the 
house of delegates : in some constitutions no offences are spe¬ 
cified, in order to subject the public functionaries to an un¬ 
limited responsibility.j- But I will venture to affirm, that it 
is precisely their mildness which renders the American laws 
most formidable in this respect. We have shown that in 
Europe the removal of a functionary and his political inter¬ 
diction are consequences of the penalty he is to undergo, and 
that in America they constitute the penalty itself. The 
result is, that in Europe political tribunals are invested with 
rights which they are afraid to use, and that the fear of pun¬ 
ishing too much hinders them from punishing at all. But in 
America no one hesitates to inflict a penalty from which 
humanity does not recoil. To condemn a political opponent 
to death, in order to deprive him of his power, is to commit 
what all the world would execrate as a horrible assassination ; 
but to declare that opponent unworthy to exercise that au¬ 
thority, to deprive him of it, and to leave him uninjured in 
life and liberty, may appear to be the fair issue of the strug¬ 
gle. But this sentence, which it is so easy to pronounce, is 
not the less fatally severe to the majority of those upon whom 
it is inflicted. Great criminals may undoubtedly brave its 
intangible rigor, but ordinary offenders will dread it as a con¬ 
demnation which destroys their position in the world, casts a 
blight upon their honor, and condemns them to a shameful 
inactivity worse than death. The influence exercised in the 
United States upon the progress of society by the jurisdiction 
of political bodies may not appear to be formidable, but it is 
only the more immense. It does not act directly upon the 
governed, but it renders the majority more absolute over 
tliose who govern ; it does not confer an unbounded authority 
on the legislator which can only be exerted at some momen¬ 
tous crisis, but it establishes a temperate and regular influ¬ 
ence, which is at all times available. If the power is de¬ 
creased, it can, on the other hand, be more conveniently em¬ 
ployed, and more easily abused. By preventing political 
tribunals from inflicting judicial punishments, the Americans 
seem to have eluded the worst consequences of legislative 

* Chapter I., sect, ii., § 8. 

t See the constitutions of Illinois, Maine, Connecticut, and Georgia. 


tx THE UNITED STATES. 


-1107 


tyranny, rather than tyranny itself; and I am not sure that 
political jurisdiction, as it is constituted in the United States, 
is not the most formidable which has ever been placed in the 
rude grasp of a popular majority. When the American re¬ 
publics begin to degenerate, it will be easy to verify the truth 
of this observation, by remarking whether the number of 
political impeachments augments.* 


CHAPTER Vm. 

THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

I HAVE hitherto considered each state as a separate whole, 
and I have explained the different springs which the people 
sets in motion, and the different means of action which it em¬ 
ploys. But all the states which I have considered as inde¬ 
pendent are forced to submit, in certain cases, to the supreme 
authority of the Union. The time is now come for me to 
examine the partial sovereignty which has been conceded to 
the Union, and to cast a rapid glance over the federal con¬ 
stitution.! 


HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

Origin of the first Union.—Its Weakness.—Congress appeals to the 
constituent Authority.—Interval of two Years between the Appeal 
and the Promulgation of the new Constitution. 

The thirteen colonies which simultaneously threw off the 
yoke of England toward the end of the last century, possessed, 
as I have already observed, the.same religion, the same lan¬ 
guage, the same customs, and almost the same laws; they 
were struggling against a common enemy; and these reasons 
were sufficiently strong to unite them one to another, and to 
consolidate them into one nation. But as each of them had 
enjoyed a separate existence, and a government within its 
own control, the peculiar interests and customs which resulted 
from this system, were opposed to a compact and intimate 

Sec Appendix N. 

f See the constitution of the United States. 




108 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION^ 


union, wfiieh would have absorbed the individual importafic^ 
of each in the general importance of alL Hence arose two • 
opposite tendencies, the one prompting the Anglo-Americans 
to unite, the other to divide their strength. As long as the 
war with the mother-country lasted;, the principle of UniOTi was 
ifept alive by necessity ; and although the laws which con¬ 
stituted it were defective, the common tie subsisted in spite of 
Iheir imperfections.* But no sooner was peace concluded 
than the faults of the legislation became manifest, and the 
state seemed to be suddenly dissolved. Each colony became 
. an independent republic, and assumed an absolute sovereignty,. 
The federal government, condemned to impotence by its con¬ 
stitution, and no longer stfstained by the presence of a com-' 
mon danger, saw the outrages offered to its flag by the great 
nations of Europe, while it was scarcely able to maintain its 
ground against the Indian tribes, and to pay the interest of 
the debt which had been contracted during the war of inde¬ 
pendence. It was already on the verge of destruction, when 
It officially proclaimed its inability to conduct the government, 
and appealed to the ccmstituent authority of the nation.f 

If America ever approached (for however brief a time) that 
lofty pinnacle of glory to which the proud fancy of its inhabit¬ 
ants is wont to point, it was at the solemn moment at which 
the power of the nation abdicated, as it were, the empire of 
the land. All ages have furnished the spectacle of a people 
struggling with energy to win its independence; and the' 
efforts of the Americans fh throwing off the English yoke 
have been considerably exaggerated. Separated from their 
enemies by three thousand miles of ocean, and backed by a 
powerful ally, the success of the United States may be more 
justly attributed to their geographical position, than to the 
valor of their armies or the patriotism of their citizens. It 
would be ridiculous to compare the American war to the wars 
of the French revolution, or the efforts of the Americans to 
those of the French, who, when they were attacked by the’ 
whole of Europe, without credit and without allies, were still 
capable of opposing a twentieth part of their population to their 
foes, and of bearing the torch of revolution beyond their 
frontiers while they stifled its devouring flame within the 

* See the articles of the first confederatioR formed in 1778. This 
constitution was not adopted by all the states-until 1781. See also the 
analysis given of this^ constitution in the Federalist,, from No, 15 to 
No. 22 inclusive, and Story’s “ Commentary on the Constitution of the 
United States,” pp. 85-115. 

t Congress made this declaration on the 21st of February, 1787. 


ffiDfifiAL CONSTITtrtlOf]??. 




bosom of their country. But it is a novelty in the history of 
society to see a great people turn a calm and scrutinizing eye 
Upon itself when apprised by the legislature that the wheels 
of government had stopped ; to see it carefully examine the 
extent of the evil, and patiently wait for two whole years 
Until a remedy was discovered, which it voluntarily adopted 
without having wrung a tear or a drop of blood from mam 
kind. At the time when the inadequacy of the first constitU-* 
tion was discovered, America possessed the double advantage 
of that calm which had succeeded the effervescence of the 
revolution, and of those great men Who had led the revolution 
to a successful issue. The assembly which accepted the task 
of composing the second constitution was small ;* but George 
Washington was its president, and it contained the choicest 
talents and the noblest hearts which had ever appeared in the 
New World, This national commission, after long and ma¬ 
ture deliberation, offered to the acceptance of the people the 
body of general laws which still rules the Union. All the 
states adopted it successively,f The new federal govern¬ 
ment commenced its functions in 1789, after an interregnum 
of two years. The revolution of America terminated when 
that of France began, 


. SUMMARY OP THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, 

division of Authority between the Federal Government and the States, 
—The Government of the States is the Rule: the Federal Govern¬ 
ment the Exception. 

The first question which awaited the Americans was in¬ 
tricate, and by no means easy of solution ; the object was so 
to divide the authority of the different states which composed 
the Union, that each of them should continue to govern itself 
in all that concerned its internal prosperity, while the entire 
nation, represented by the Union, should continue to form a 
compact body, and to provide for the exigencies of the peo¬ 
ple. It was as impossible to determine beforehand, with any 
degree of accuracy, the share of authority which each of the 

* It consisted of fifty-five members: Washington, Madison,Hamil¬ 
ton, and the two Morrises, were among the number. 

f It was not adopted by the legislative bodies, but representatives 
were elected by the people for this sole purpose ; and the new consti¬ 
tution was discussed at length in each of these assemblies. 






110 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


two governments w^as to enjoy, as to foresee all the incidents 
in the existence of a nation. 

The obligations and the claims of the federal government 
were simple and easily definable, because the Union had been 
formed with the express purpose of meeting the general exi¬ 
gencies of the people ; but the claims and obligations of tho 
states were, on the other hand, complicated and various, be¬ 
cause those governments penetrated into all the details of 
social life. The attributes of the federal government were, 
therefore, carefully enumerated, and all that was not included 
among them was declared to constitute a part of the privileges 
of the several governments of the states. Thus the govern¬ 
ment of the states remained the rule, and tha': of the confede¬ 
ration became the exception.* 

But as it was foreseen, that, in practice, questions might 
arise as to the exact Mmits of this exceptional authority, and 
that it would be dangerous to submit these questions to the 
decision of the ordinary courts of justice, established in the 
states by the states themselves, a high federal court was cre- 
ated,'!' which was destined, among other functions, to maintain 
the balance of power which had been established by the con¬ 
stitution between the two rival governments.:}: 

* See the amendment to the federal constitution ; Federalist, No. 32. 
Story, p. 711. Kent’s Commentaries, vol. i., p. 364. 

It is to be observed, that whenever the exclusive right of regulating 
certain matters is not reserved to congress by the constitution, the 
states may take up the affair, until it is brought before the national 
assembly. For instance, congress has the right of making a general 
law of bankruptcy, which, however, it neglects to do. Each state is 
then at liberty to make a law for itself. This point, liowever, has been 
established by discussion in the law-courts, and may be said to belong 
more properly to jurisprudence. 

t The action of this court is indirect, as we shall hereafter show. 

X It is thus that the Federalist, No. 45, explains the division of su¬ 
premacy between the union and the states: “ The powers delegated by 
the constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those 
which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefi¬ 
nite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, 
as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers re¬ 
served to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the 
ordinary course of affairs, concern the internal order and prosperity of 
the state.” 

I shall often have occasion to quote the Federalist in this work. 
When the bill which has since become the constitution of the United 
States was submitted to the approval of the people, and the discussions 
were still pending, three men who had already acquired a portion of 
that celebrity which they have since enjoyed, John Jay, Hamilton, 
and Madison, formed an association with the intention of explaining 
to the nation the advantages of the measure which was proposed. 
With this view they published a series of articles in the shape of a 




r 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


Ill 


PREROGATIVE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

Power of declaring War, making Peace, and levying general Taxes 
vested in the Federal Government.—What Part of the internal Poli¬ 
cy of the Country it may direct—The Government of the Union in 
some respects more central than the King’s Government in the old 
French monarchy. 

The external relations of a people may be compared to those 
of private individuals, and they cannot be advantageously 
maintained without the agency of the single head of a govern¬ 
ment. The exclusive right of making peace and war, of 
concluding treaties of commerce, of raising armies, and 
equipping fleets, was therefore granted to the Union.* The 
necessity of a national government was less imperiously felt 
in the conduct of the internal affairs of society; but there 
are certain general interests which can only be attended to 
with advantage by a general authority. The Union was 
invested with the power of controlling the monetary system, 
of directing the post-office, and of opening the great roads 
which were to establish communication between the different 
parts of the country.f The independence of the government 
of each state was formally recognized in its sphere ; never¬ 
theless the federal government was authorized to interfere 
in the internal affairs of the states^ in a few predetermined 
cases, in which an indiscreet abuse of their independence 
might compromise the security of the Union at large. Thus, 
while the power of modifying and changing their legislation 
at pleasure was preserved in all the republics, they were 
forbidden to enact ex post facto laws, or to create a class of 
nobles in their community.§ Lastly, as it was necessary 
that the federal government should be able to fulfil its engage¬ 
ments, it was endowed with an unlimited power of levying 
taxes. II 

journal, which now form a complete treatise. They entitled their 
journal, “ The Federalist,” a name which has been retained in the 
work. The Federalist is an excellent book, which ought to be 
familiar to the statesmen of all countries, although it especially con¬ 
cerns America. 

* See constitution, sect. 8. Federalist, Nos. 41 and 42. Kent’s 
Commentaries, vol. i., p. 207. Story, pp. 358-382; 409-426. 

t Several other privileges of the same kind exist, such as that which 
empowers the Union to legislate on bankruptcy, to grant patents, and 
other matters in which its intervention is clearly necessary. 

X Even in these cases its interference is indirect. The Union inter¬ 
feres by means of the tribunals, as will be hereafter shown. 

§ Federal Constitution, sect. 10, art. 1. 

\\ Constitution, sect. 8, 9, and 10. Federalist, Nos. 30-36 inclusive, 




m 


TKE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


In examining the balance of power as established by the 
federal constitution ; in remarking on the one hand the por¬ 
tion of sovereignty which has been reserved to the several 
states, and on the other the share of power which the Union 
has assumed, it is evident that the federal legislators enter¬ 
tained the clearest and most accurate notions on the nature 
of the centralisation of government. The United States 
form not only a republic, but a confederation j nevertheless 
the authority of the nation is more central than it was in 
several of the monarchies of Europe when the American 
constitution was formed. Take, for instance, the two follow¬ 
ing examples t— 

Thirteen supreme courts of justice existed in France, which, 
generally speaking, had the right of interpreting the law 
without appeal; and those provinces, styled pays d’etats, were 
authorized to refuse their assent to an impost which had been 
levied by the sovereign who represented the nation. 

In the Union there is but one tribunal to interpret, as there 
is one legislature to make the laws; and an impost voted by 
the representatives of the nation is binding upon all the citizens. 

In these two essential points, therefore, the Union exercises 
niore central authority than the French monarchy possessed, 
although the Union is only an assemblage of confederate 
republics. 

In Spain certain provinces had the right of establishing a 
system of customhouse duties peculiar to themselves, although 
that privilege belongs, by its very nature, to the national 
sovereignty. In America the congress alone has the right 
of regulating the commercial relations of the states. The 
government of the confederation is therefore more centralized 
in this respect than the kingdom of Spain. It is true that- 
the power of the crown in France or in Spain was always 
able to obtain by force whatever the constitution of the 
country denied, and that the ultimate result was eonsequently 
the same ; and I am here discussing the theory of the con¬ 
stitution. 


FEDERAL ROWERS. 

After having settled the limits within which the federal gov¬ 
ernment was to act, the next point was to determine the pow¬ 
ers which it was to exert. 

and 41-44. Kent’s Commentaries, vol. i., pp. 207 and 381. Story, 
pp. 329 and 514. 




THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


H3 


LEGISLATIVE POWERS. 

Division of the legislative Body into two Branches.—Difference in the 
Manner of forming the two Houses.—The Principle of the Independ¬ 
ence of the States predominates in the Formation of the Senate.—The 
Principle of the Sovereignty of the Nation in the Composition of the 
House of Representatives.—Singular Effects of the Fact that a Con¬ 
stitution can only be Logical in the early Stages of a Nation 

The plan which had been laid down beforehand for the con¬ 
stitution of the several states W'as followed, in many points, in 
the organization of the powers of the Union. The federal 
legislature of the Union was composed of a senate and a 
house of Representatives. A spirit of conciliation prescribed 
the observance of distinct principles in the formation of each 
of these two assemblies. I have already shown that two 
contrary interests were opposed to each other in the establish¬ 
ment of the federal constitution. These two interests had 
given rise to two opinions. It was the wish of one party to 
convert the Union into a league of independent states, or a 
sort of congress, at which the representatives of 'he several 
peoples would meet to discuss certain points of their common 
interests. The other party desired to unite the inhabitants of 
the American colonies into one sole nation, and to establish a 
government, which should act as the sole representative of the 
nation, as far as the limited sphere of its authority would 
permit. The practical consequences of these two theories 
were exceedingly different. 

The question was, whether a league was to be established 
instead of a national government; whether the majority of 
the states, instead of a majority of the inhabitants of the 
Union, was to give the law ; for every state, the small as well 
as the great, then retained the character of an independent 
power, and entered the Union upon a footing of perfect equal¬ 
ity. If, on the contrary, the inhabitants of the United States 
were to be considered as belonging to one and the same 
nation, it was natural that the majority of the citizens of the 
Union should prescribe the law. Of course the lesser states 
could not subscribe to the application of this doctrine without, 
in fact, abdicating their existence in relation to the sove- 
I’eignty of the confederation ; since they would have passed 
from the condition of a co-equal and co-legislative authority, 
to that of an insignificant fraction of a great people. The 
former system would have invested them with an excessive au¬ 
thority, the latter would have annulled their influence alto- 
11 







114 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


gether. Under these circumstances, the result was, that the 
strict rules of logic were evaded, as is usually the case when 
interests are opposed to arguments. A middle course was hit 
upon by the legislators, which brought together by force two 
systems theoretically irreconcilable. 

The principle of the independence of the states prevailed 
in the formation of the senate, and that of the sovereignty of 
the nation predominated in the composition of the house of re¬ 
presentatives. It was decided that each state should send two 
senators to congress, and a number of representatives propor¬ 
tioned to its population.* It results from this arrangement 
that the state of New York has at the present day forty repre¬ 
sentatives, and only two senators ; the state of Delaware has 
two senators, and only one representative ; the state of Dela¬ 
ware is therefore equal to the state of New York in the se¬ 
nate, while the latter has forty times the influence of the 
former in the house of representatives. Thus, if the minority 
of the nation preponderates in the senate, it may paralyze the 
decisions of the majority represented in the other house, which 
is contrary to the spirit of constitutional government. 

The facts show how rare and how difficult it is rationally 
and logically to combine all the several parts of legislation. 
In the course of time different interests arise, and different 
principles are sanctioned by the same people ; and when a 
general constitution is to be established, these interests and 
principles are so many natural obstacles to the rigorous appli¬ 
cation of any political system, with all its consequences. The 
early stages of national existence are the only periods at which 
it is possible to maintain the complete logic of legislation ; and 
when we perceive a nation in the enjoyment of this advantage, 
before we hasten to conclude that it is wise, we should do well 
to remember that it is young. When the federal constitution 
was formed, the interest of independence for the separate 
states, and the interest of union for the whole people, were 

* Every ten years congress fixes anew the number of representatives 
which each state is to furnish. The total nnmber was 69 in 1789, and 
24.0 in 1833. (See American Almanac, 1834, p. 194.) 

The constitution decided that there should not be more than one re¬ 
presentative for every 30,000 persons ; but no minimum was fixed 
U})on. The congress has not thought fit to augment the number of re¬ 
presentatives in proportion to the increase of population. The first act 
which was passed on the subject (14th April, 1792: see Laws of the 
United States, by Story, vol. i., p. 235) decided that there should be 
one representative for. every 33,000 inhabitants. The last act, which 
was passed in 1822, fixes the proportion at one for 48,000. The popu¬ 
lation represented is composed of all the freemen and of threo-fifths of 
the slaves. 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


115 


the only two conflicting interests which existed among the 
Anglo-Americans; and a compromise was necessarily made 
between them. 

It is, however, just to acknowledge that this part of the con¬ 
stitution has not hitherto produced those evils which might 
have been feared. All the states are young and contiguous; 
their customs, their ideas, and their wants, are not dissimilar ; 
and the differences which result from their size or inferiority 
do not suffice to set their interests at variance. The small 
states have consequently never been induced to league them¬ 
selves together in the senate to oppose the designs of the 
larger ones; and indeed there is so irresistible an authority 
in the legitimate expression of the will of a people, that the 
senate could offer but a feeble opposition to the vote of the 
majority of the house of representatives. 

It must not be forgotten, on the other hand, that it was not 
in the power of the American legislators to reduce to a single 
nation the people for whom they were making laws. The 
object of the federal constitution was not to destroy the inde¬ 
pendence of the states, but to restrain it. By acknowledging 
the real authority of these secondary communities (and it was 
impossible to deprive them of it),” they disavowed beforehand 
the habitual use of constraint in enforcing the decisions of 
the majority. Upon this principle' the introduction of the in¬ 
fluence of the states into the mechanism of the federal govern¬ 
ment was by no means to be wondered at; since it only 
attested the existence of an acknowledged power, which was 
to be humored, and not forcibly checked. 


. / 

A FARTHER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SENATE AND THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

The Senate named by the provincial Legislature—the Representatives, 
. by the People.—Double Election of the Former—Single Election of 
the Latter.—Term of the different Offices.—Peculiar Functions of 
each House. > ■, 

The senate not only differs from the other house in the' prin¬ 
ciple which it represents, but also in the mode of its election, 
in the term for which it is chosen, and in the nature of its 
functions. The house of representatives is named by the 
people, the senate by the legislators of each state ; the former 
is directly elected ; the latter is elected by an elected body ; 
the term for which the representatives are chosen is only two 
years, that of the senators is six. The functions of the house 







116 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


of representatives are purely legislative, and the only share it 
takes in the judicial power is in the impeachment of public 
officers. The senate co-operates in the work of legislation, 
and tries those political offences which the house of represen- 
tatives submits to its decision. It also acts as the great 
executive council of the nation; the treaties which are con¬ 
cluded by the president must be ratified by the senate ; and 
the appointments he may make must be definitively approved 
by the same body.* '' 


THE EXECUTIVE POWER.f 

Dependence of the President.—He is Elective and Responsible.—He is 
Free to act in liis own Sphere under the Inspection, but not under 
the Direction, of the Senate.—His Salary fixed at his Entry into 
Office.—Suspensive Veto. 

The American legislators undertook a difficult task in 
attempting to create an executive power dependent on the 
majority of the people and nevertheless sufficiently strong to 
act without restraint in its own sphere. It was indispensa¬ 
ble to the maintenance of the republican form of government 
that the representatives of the executive power should be sub¬ 
ject to the will of the nation. ^ 

The president is an elective magistrate. His honor, his 
property, his liberty, and his life, are the securities which the 
people has for the temperate use of his power. But in the 
exercise of his authority he cannot be said to be perfectly 
independent; the senate takes cognizance of his relations with 
foreign powers, and of the distribution of public appointments, 
so that he can neither be bribed, nor can he employ the 
means of corruption. The legislators of the Union acknow¬ 
ledged that the executive power would be incompetent to fulfil 
its task with dignity and utility, unless it enjoyed a greater 
degree of stability and of strength than had been granted to it 
in the separate states. 

The president is chosen for four years, and he may be re¬ 
elected ; so that the chances of a prolonged administration 
may inspire him with hopeful undertakings for the public 
good, and with the means of carrying them into execution. 
The president was made the sole representative of the execu¬ 
tive power of the Union ; and care was taken not to render 

* See the Federalist, Nos, 52-66, inclusive. Story, pp. 199-314 
Constitution of the United States, sections 2 and 3. ’ 

t See the Federalist, Nos. 67-77. Constitution of the United States, 
art. 2. Story, pp. 115; 515-780. Kent’s Commentaries, p. 255. 



THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


117 


his decisions subordinate to the vote of a council—a danger¬ 
ous measure, which tends at the same time to clog the action 
of the government and to diminish its responsibility. The 
senate has the right of annulling certain acts of the president; 
but it cannot compel him to take any steps, nor does it parti¬ 
cipate in the exercise of the executive power. 

The action of the legislature on the executive power may 
be direct; and we have just shown that the Americans care¬ 
fully obviated this influence ; but it may, on the other hand, 
be indirect. Public assemblies which have the power of de¬ 
priving an officer of state of his salary, encroach upon his 
independence ; and as they are free to make the laws, it is 
to be feared lest they should gradually appropriate to them¬ 
selves a portion of that authority which the constitution had 
vested in his hands. This dependence of the executive power 
is one of the defects inherent in republican constitutions. 
The Americans have not been able to counteract the ten¬ 
dency which legislative assemblies have to get possession 
of the government, but they have rendered this propensity 
less irresistible. The salary of the president is fixed, at the 
time of his entering upon office, for the whole period of his 
magistracy. The president is, moreover, provided with a 
suspensive veto, which allows him to oppose the passing of 
such laws as might destroy the portion of independence which 
the constitution awards him. The struggle between the pre¬ 
sident and the legislature must always be an unequal one, 
since the latter is certain of bearing down all resistance by 
persevering in its plans ; but the suspensive veto forces it at 
least to reconsider the matter, and, if the motion be persisted 
in, it must then be backed by a majority of two-thirds of the 
whole house. The veto is, in fact, a sort of appeal to the 
people. The executive power, which, without this security, 
might have been secretly oppressed, adopts this means of 
pleading its cause and stating its motives. But if the legis¬ 
lature is certain of overpowering all resistance by persevering 
in its plans, I reply, that in the constitutions of all nations, 
of whatever kind they may be, a certain point exists at 
which the legislator is obliged to have recourse to the good 
sense and the virtue of his fellow-citizens. This point is more 
prominent and more discoverable in republics, while it is 
more remote and more carefully concealed in monarchies, 
but it always exists somewhere. There is no country in the 
world in which everything can be provided for by the laws, 
or in which political institutions can prove a substitute for 
common sense and public morality. 





118 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE POSITION OF THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES AND THAT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL KING 
OF FRANCE. 

Executive Power in the United States as Limited and as Partial as the 
Supremacy which it Represents.—Executive Power in France as 
Universal as the Supremacy it Represents.—The King a Branch of 
the Legislature.—The President the mere Executor of the Law.— 
Other Differences resulting from the Duration of the two Powers.— 
The President checked in the Exercise of the executive Authority.— 
The King Independent in its Exercise.—Notwithstanding these 
Discrepancies, France is more akin to a Republic than the Union to 
a Monarchy.—Comparison of the Number of public Officers depend¬ 
ing upon the executive Power in the two countries. 

The executive power has so important an influence on the 
destinies of nations that I am inclined to pause for an instant 
at this portion of my subject, in order more clearly to explain 
the part it sustains in America. In order to form an accu¬ 
rate idea of the position of the president of the United States, 
it may not be irrelevant to compare it to that of one of the 
constitutional kings of Europe. In this comparison I shall 
pay but little attention to the external signs of power, which 
are more apt to deceive the eye of the observer than to guide 
his researches. When a monarchy is being gradually trans¬ 
formed into a republic, the executive power retains the titles, 
the honors, the etiquette, and even the funds of royalty, long 
after its authority has disappeared. The English, after hav¬ 
ing cut off the head of one king, and expelled another from 
his throne, were accustomed to accost the successors of those 
princes upon their knees. On the other hand, when a repub¬ 
lic falls under the sway of a single individual, the demeanor 
of the sovereign is simple and unpretending, as if his authority 
was not yet paramount. When the emperors exercised an 
unlimited control over the fortunes and the lives of their fellow- 
citizens, it was customary to call them Cesar in conversation, 
and they were in the habit of supping without formality at 
their friends’ houses. It is therefore necessary to look below 
the surface. 

The sovereignty of the United States is shared between 
the Union and the states, while in France it is undivided and 
compact: hence arises the first and the most notable differ¬ 
ence which exists between the president of the United States 
and the king of France. In the United States the executive 
power is as limited and partial as the sovereignty of the Union 
in whose name it acts; in France it is as universal as the 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


119 


authority of the state. The Americans have a federal, and 
the French a national government. 

The first cause of inferiority results from the nature of 
things, but it is not the only one; the second in importance 
is as follows: sovereignty may be defined to be the right of 
making laws: in France, the king really exercises a portion 
of the sovereign power, since the laws have no weight till he 
has given his assent to them; he is moreover -the executor 
of all they ordain. The president is also the executor of the 
laws, but he does not really co-operate in their formation, 
since the refusal of his assent does not annul them. He is 
therefore merely to be considered as the agent of the sovereign 
power. But not only does the king of France exercise a por¬ 
tion of the sovereign power, he also contributes to the nomi¬ 
nation of the legislature, which exercises the other portion. 
He has the privilege of appointing the members of one 
chamber, and of dissolving the other at his pleasure; where¬ 
as the president of the United States has no share in the 
formation of the legislative body, and cannot dissolve any 
part of it. The king has the same right of bringing forward 
measures as the chambers; a righ+ which the president does 
not possess. The king is represented in each assembly by 
his ministers, who explain his intentions, support his opinions, 
and maintain the principles of the government. The presi¬ 
dent and his ministers are alike excluded from congress; so 
that his influence and his opinions can only penetrate indi¬ 
rectly into that great body. The king of France is therefore 
on an equal footing with the legislature, which can no more act 
without him, than he can without it. The president exer¬ 
cises an authority inferior to, and depending upon, that of the 
legislature. 

Even in the exercise of the executive power, properly so 
called, the point upon which his position seems to be almost 
analogous to that of the king of France—the president labors 
under several causes of inferiority. The authority of the 
king, in France, has, in the first place, the advantage of dura¬ 
tion over that of the president: and durability is one of the 
chief elements of strength; nothing is either loved or feared 
but what is likely to endure. The president of the United< 
States is a magistrate elected for four years. The king, in 
France, is an hereditary sovereign. 

In the exercise of the executive power the president of the 
United States is constantly subject to jealous scrutiny. He 
ma} uittke, but he cannot conclude a treaty; he may desig- 


120 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


nate, but he cannot appoint, a public officer.* The ^ king of 
France is absolute in the sphere of the executive power. 

The president of the United States is responsible for his 
actions; but the person of the king is declared inviolable by 
the French charter. 

Nevertheless, the supremacy of public opinion is no less 
above the head of one than of the other. This power is less 
definite, less evident, and less sanctioned by the laws in 
France than in America, but in fact exists. In America it 
acts by elections and decrees ; in France it proceeds by revo¬ 
lutions ; but notwithstanding the different constitutions of 
these two countries, public opinion is the predominant autho¬ 
rity in both of them... The fundamental principle of legisla¬ 
tion—a principle essentially republican—is the same in both 
countries, although its consequences may be different, and 
its results more or less extensive. Whence I am led to con¬ 
clude, that France with its king is nearer akin to a republic, 
than the Union with its president is to a monarchy. 

In what I have been ^ saying I have only touched upon the 
main points of distinction ; and if I could have entered into 
details, the contrast would have been rendered still more 
striking. 

I have remarked that the authority of the president in the 
United States is only exercised within the limits of a partial 
sovereignty, while that of the king, in France, is undivided. 
I might have gone on to show that the power of the king’s 
government in France^ exceeds its natural limits, however 
extensive they may be, and penetrates in a thousand different 
ways into the administration of private interests. Among the 
examples of this influence may be quoted that which results 
from the great number of public functionaries, who all derive 
their appointments from the government. This number now 
exceeds all previous limits; it amounts to 138,000f nomina¬ 
tions, each of which may be considered as an element of power. 
The president of the United States has not the exclusive right 

* The constitution had left it doubtful whether the president was 
obliged to consult the senate in the removal as well as in the appoint¬ 
ment of federal officers. The Federalist (No. 77) seemed to establish 
the affirmative*'; but in 1789, congress formally decided that as the 
president was responsible for his actions, he ought not to be forced to 
employ agents who had forfeited his esteem. See Kent’s Commenta¬ 
ries, vol. i., p. 289. 

t The sums annually paid by the state to these officers amount to 
200,000,000 francs (eight millions sterling). 






THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


121 


of making any public appointments, and their whole number 
scarcely exceeds 12,000,* 

[Those who are desirous of tracing the question respecting the power 
of the president to remove every executive officer of the government 
without the sanction of the senate, will find some light upon it by re¬ 
ferring to 5th Marshall’s Life of Washington, p. 196 ; 5 Sergeant and 
Rawle’s Reports (Pennsylvania), 451 : Elliot’s Debates on the Federal 
Constitution, vol iv., p. 355, contains the debate in the House of Re¬ 
presentatives, June 16, 1799, when the question was first mooted 
Report of a committee of the senate in 1822, in Niles’s Register of 29th 
August in that year. It is certainly very extraordinary that such a vast 
power, and one so extensively affecting the whole administration of 
the government, should rest on such slight foundations, as an inference 
from an act of congress, providing that when the secretary of the trea¬ 
sury should be removed by the president, his assistant should discharge 
the duties of the office. How congress could confer the power, even 
by a direct act, is not perceived. It must be a necessary implication 
from the words of the constitution, or it does not exist. It has been 
repeatedly denied in and out of congress, and must be considered, as 
yet, an unsettled question .—American Editor.^ 


ACCIDENTAL CAUSES WHICH MAY INCREASE THE INFLUENCE OF 
THE EXECUTIVE. ^ 


External security of the Union.—Army of six thousand Men.—Few 

Ships.—The President has no Opportunity of exercising his great 

Prerogatives.—In the Prerogatives he exercises he is weak. 

If the executive power is feebler in America than in 
France, the cause is more attributable to the circumstances 
than to the laws of the country. 

It is chiefly in its foreign relations that the executive power 
of a nation is called upon to exert its skill ,and vigor.^ If the 
existence of the Union were perpetually threatened, and its 
chief interest were in daily connexion with those of other pow- 
erful nations, the executive government would assume an in¬ 
creased importance In proportion to the measures expected of 
it, and those which it w'ould carry into effect. The president 
of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the army, 
but of an army composed of only six thousand men ; he com- 

* This number is extracted from the “ National Calendar,” for 1833, 
The National Calendar is.an American almanac which contains the 
names of all the federal officers. 

It results from this comparison that the king of France has eleven 
times as many places at his disposal as the president, although the 
population of France is not much more than double that of the Union 
12 





122 


THE FEHER.4L COKSTTTHTION', 


mands the fleet, but the fleet reckons but few sail he con¬ 
ducts the foreign relations of the Union, but the United States 
are a nation without neighbors. ’ Separated from the rest of 
the world by the ocean, and too weak as yet to aim at the 
dominion of the,seas, they have no *enemies,_and their inter¬ 
ests rarely come into contact with those of any other nation 
of the globe. 

The practical' part of a government must not be judged by 
the theory of its constitution. The president of the United 
States is in the possession of almost royal prerogatives, which 
he has no opportunity of exercising ; and those privileges 
which he can at present use are very circumscribed : the laws 
allow him to possess a degree of influence which circum¬ 
stances do not permit him to employ. 

On the other hand, the great strength of the royal preroga¬ 
tive in France arises from circumstances far more than 
from the lawsi Tliere ^ the executive government is con¬ 
stantly struggling against prodigious obstacles, and exerting 
all ijs energies to repress them ; so that it increases by the 
extent of its achievements, and by the importance of the 
events it controls, without, for that reason, modifying its con- 
stitution. If the laws had made it as feeble and as circum¬ 
scribed avs it is in the Union, its influence would very soon 
become much greater. 


WHY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT RE¬ 
QUIRE THE MAJORITY OF THE TWO HOUSES IN ORDER TO 
CARRY ON THE GOVERNMENT. 

It is an established axiom in Europe that a constitutional 
king cannot persevere in a system of government which is 
opposed by the two other branches of the legislature. But 
several presidents of the United States have been known to 
lose the majority in the legislative body, without being 
obliged to abandon the supreme power, and without inflicting 
a serious evil upon society. I have heard this fact quoted 
as an instance of the independence and power of executive 
government in America : ajnoment’s reflection will convince 
us, on the contrary, that it is a proof of its extreme )veakness. 

A king in Europe requires the support of the legislature 
to enable him to perform the duties imposed upon him by the 
constitution, because those duties are enormous. A constitu¬ 
tional king in Europe is not merely the executor of the law, 



THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


123 


Dut the execution of its provisions devolves so completely 
upon him, that he has the power of paralyzing its influence 
if it opposes his designs. He requires the assistance of the 
legislative assemblies to make the law, but those assemblies 
stand in need of his aid to execute it: these two authorities 
cannot subsist without each other, and the mechanism of 
government is stopped as soon as they are at variance. 

In America the president cannot prevent any law from 
being passed, nor can he evade the obligation of enforcing it. 
His sincere and zealous co-operation is no doubt useful, but 
it is not indispensable in the carrying on of public affairs. 
All his important acts are directly or indirectly submitted to 
the legislature ; and where he is independent of it he can do 
but little. It is therefore his weakness, and not his power, 
which enables him to remain in opposition to congress. In 
Europe, harmony must reign between the crown and the 
other branches of the legislature, because a collision between 
them may prove serious ; in America, this harmony is not 
indispensable, because such a collision is impossible. 


ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT. 

Dangers of the elective System increase in Proportion to the Extent 
of the Prerogative.—This System possible in America because no 
powerful executive Authority is required.—What Circumstances 
are favorable to the elective System.—Why the Election of the 
President does not cause a Deviation from the Principles of the Gov¬ 
ernment.—Influence of the Election of the President on secondary 
Functionaries. 

The dangers of the system of election applied to the head 
of the executive government of a great people, have been suf¬ 
ficiently exemplified by experience and by history ; and the 
remarks I am about to make refer to America alone. These 
dangers may be more or less formidable in proportion to the 
pla(^ which the executive power occupies, and to the irnpor- 
tance it possesses in the state; and they may vary accord¬ 
ing to the mode of election, and the circumstances in which 
the electors are placed. The most weighty argument against 
the election of a chief-magistrate is, that it offers so splendid 
a lure to private ambition, and is so apt to inflame men in the 
pursuit of power, that when legitimate means are wanting, 
force may not unfrequently seize what right denies. 

It is clear that the greater the privileges of the executive 



124 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


authority are, the greater is the temj)tation; the more the 
ambition of the candidates is excited, the more warmly are 
their interests espoused by a throng of partisans who hope to 
share the power when tlieir patron has won the prize. The 
dangers of the elective system increase, therefore, in the ex¬ 
act ratio of the influence exercised by the executive power in 
the affairs of state. The revolutions of Poland are not solely 
attributable to the elective ‘system in general, but to the fact 
that the elected magistrate was the head of a powerful mon¬ 
archy. Before we can discuss the absolute advantages of 
the elective system, we must make preliminary inquiries as 
to whether the geographical position, the laws, the habits, the 
manners, and the opinions of the people among whom it is to 
be introduced, will admit of the establishment of a weak and ' 
dependent executive government ; for to attempt to render 
the representative of the state a powerful sovereign, and at 
the same time elective, is, in my opinion, to entertain two in¬ 
compatible designs. To reduce hereditary royalty to the 
condition of an elective authority, the only .means that I am 
acquainted with are to circumscribe its sphere of action be¬ 
forehand, gradually to diminish its prerogatives, and to accus¬ 
tom the people to live without its protection. Nothing, how¬ 
ever, is farther from the designs of the republicans of Europe 
than this course : as many of them only owe their hatred of 
tyranny to the sufferings which they have personally under¬ 
gone, the extent of the executive power does not excite their 
hostility, and they only attack its origin without perceiving 
how nearly the two things are connected. 

Hitherto no citizen has shown any disposition to expose 
his honor and his life, in order to become the president of the 
United States ; because the power of that office is temporary, 
limited, and subordinate. The prize of fortune must be 
great to encourage adventurers in so desperate a game. No 
candidate has as yet been able to arouse the dangerous en¬ 
thusiasm or the passionate sympathies of the people in his 
favor, for the very simple reason, that when he is at the head 
of the government he has but little power, but little wealth, 
and but little glory to share among his friends; and his in¬ 
fluence in the state is too small for the success or the ruin 
of a faction to depend upon the elevation of an individual to 
power. 

The great advantage of hereditary monarchies is, that as 
the private interest of a family is always intimately connected 
with the interests of the state, the executive government is 
never suspended for a single instant; and if the affairs of a 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


125 


monarchy are not better conducted than those of a republic, 
at least there is always some one to conduct them, well or ill, 
according to his capacity. In elective states, on the con- 
trary, the wheels of government cease to act, as it were of 
their own accord, at the approach of an election, and even 
for some time previous to that event. The laws may indeed 
accelerate the operation of the election, which may be con¬ 
ducted with such simplicity and rapidity that the seat of 
power will never be left vacant; but, notwithstanding these 
precautions, a break necessarily occurs in the minds of the 
people. 

At the approach of an election the head of the executive 
government is wholly occupied by the coming struggle ; his 
future plans are doubtful ; he can undertake nothing new, 
and he will only prosecute with indifference those designs 
which another will perhaps terminate. “ I am so near the 
time of my retirement from office,” said President Jefferson 
on the 21st of January, 1809 (six weeks before the election), 
“ that 1 feel no passion, I take no part, I express no senti¬ 
ment. It appears to me just to leave to my successor the 
commencement of those measures which he will have to 
prosecute, and for which he will be responsible.” 

On the other hand, the eyes of the nation are centred on a 
single point; all are watching the gradual birth of so impor¬ 
tant an event. The wider the influence of the executive 
power extends, the greater and the more necessary is its con¬ 
stant action, the more fatal is the term of suspense ; and a 
nation which is accustomed to the government, or, still more, 
one used to the administrative protection of a powerful ex¬ 
ecutive authority, would be infallibly convulsed by an elec¬ 
tion of this kind. In the United States the action of the 
government may be slackened with impunity, because it is 
always weak and circumscribed. 

One of the principal vices of the elective system is, that it 
always introduces a certain degree of instability into the in¬ 
ternal and external policy of the state. But this disadvan¬ 
tage is less sensibly felt if the share of power vested in the 
elected magistrate is small. In Rome the principles of the 
government underwent no variation, although the consuls 
were changed every year, because the senate, which was an 
hereditary assembly, possessed the directing authority. If 
the elective system were adopted in Europe, the condition of 
most of the monarchical states would be changed at every 
new election. In America the president exercises a certain 
influence on state affairs, but he does not conduct them; the 
12 * 



126 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


preponderating power is vested in the representatives of the 
whole nation. The political maxims of the country depend 
therefore on the mass of the people, not on the president 
alone ; and consequently in America the elective system has 
no very prejudicial influence on the fixed principles of the 
government. But the want of fixed principles is an evil so 
inherent in the elective system, that it is still extremely per¬ 
ceptible in the narrow sphere to which the authority of the 
president extends. 

The Americans have admitted that the head of the execu¬ 
tive power, who has to bear the whole responsibility of the 
duties he is called upon to fulfil, ought to be empowered to 
choose his own agents, and to remove them at pleasure : the 
legislative bodies watch the conduct of the president more 
than they direct it. The consequence of this arrangement is, 
that at every new election the fate of all the federal public 
officers is in suspense. Mr. Quincy Adams, on his entry 
into office, discharged the majority of the individuals who had 
been appointed by his predecessor; and I am not aware that 
General Jackson allowed a single re moveable functionary 
employed in the federal service to retain his place beyond the 
first year which succeeded his election. It is sometimes made 
a subject of complaint, that in the constitutional monarchies 
of Europe the fate of the humbler servants of an administra¬ 
tion depends upon that of the ministers. But in elective gov¬ 
ernments this evil is far greater. In a constitutional monar¬ 
chy successive ministers are rapidly formed ; but as the princi¬ 
pal representative of the executive power does not change, 
the spirit of innovation is kept within bounds; the changes 
which take place are in the details rather than in the princi¬ 
ples of the administrative system.; but to substitute one system 
for another, as is done in America every four years by law, is 
to cause a sort of revolution. As to the misfortunes which 
may fall upon individuals in consequence of this state of 
things, it must be allowed that the uncertain situation of the 
public officers is less fraught with evil consequences in Ame¬ 
rica than elsewhere. It is .so easy to acquire an independent 
position in the United States, that the public officer who loses 
his place may be deprived of the comforts of life, but not of 
the means of subsistence. 

I remarked at the beginning of this chapter that the dangers 
of the elective system applied to the head of the state, are 
augmented or decreased by the peculiar circumstances of the 
people which adopts it. However the functions of the exe¬ 
cutive power may be restricted, it must always exercise a 



THK FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, 


127 


great iRfluencc upon the foreign policy of the country, for a 
negotiation cannot be opened or successfully carried on other¬ 
wise than by a single agent. The more precarious and the 
more perilous the position of a people becomes, the more ab¬ 
solute is the want of a fixed and consistent external policy, 
and the more dangerous does the elective system of the chief 
magistrate become. The policy of the Americans in rela¬ 
tion to the whole world is exceedingly simple ; and it may 
almost be said that no country stands in need of them, nor 
•do they require the co-operation of any other people. Their 
independence is never threatened. In their present condition, 
therefore, the functions of the executive power are no less 
limited by circumstances, than by the laws; and the presi¬ 
dent may frequently change his line of policy without in¬ 
volving the state in difficulty or destruction. 

Whatever the-«prerogatives of the executive power may 
t)e, the period which immediately precedes an election, and 
the moment of its duration, must always be considered as a 
national crisis, which is perilous in proportion to the internal 
embarrassments and the external dangers of the country. 
Few of the nations of Europe could escape the calamities of 
anarchy or of conquest, every time they might have to elect 
a new sovereign. In America society is so constituted that 
it can stand without assistance upon its own basis; nothing 
is to be feared from the pressure of external dangers; and 
the election of the president is a cause of agitation, hut not 
of ruin. 


MODE OF ELECTION. 

Skill of the American Leo^islators shown in the Mode of Election 
adopted by them.—Creation of a .special electoral Body.—Separate 
Votes of these Electors.—Case in which the House of Representa¬ 
tives is called upon to choose the President.—Results of the twelve 
Elections which have taken Place since the Constitution has been 
established. 

Beside the dangers which are inherent in the system, many 
other difficulties may arise from the mode of election, which 
may be obviated by the precaution of the legislator. When 
a people met in arms on some public spot to choose its head, 
it was exposed to all the chances of civil war resulting from 
so martial a mode of proceeding, beside the dangers of the 
elective system in itself. The Polish laws, which subjected 
the election of the sovereign to the veto of a single individual, 



128 


THE FEDERAL .CONSTITXJTiaN. 


suggested the murder of that individual^ or prepared the way 
to anarchy, 

In the examination of the institutions, and the political as 
well as the social condition of the United States^ we are struck 
by the admirable harmony of the gifts of fortune and the 
efforts of man. That nation possessed two of the main causes 
of internal peace; it was a new country, but it was inhabit¬ 
ed by a people grown old in the exercise of freedom. Ame¬ 
rica had no hostile neighbors to dread; and the American 
legislators, profiting by these favorable circumstances, created 
a w'eak and subordinate executive power, which could with¬ 
out danger be made elective. 

It then only remained for them to choose the least danger¬ 
ous of the various modes of election ; and the rules whicK 
they laid down upon this point admirably complete the secu¬ 
rities which the physical and political constitution of the 
country already afforded. Their object \vas to find the mode 
of election which would best express the choice of the people 
with the least possible excitement and suspense. It was ad¬ 
mitted in the first place that the simjple majority should be de¬ 
cisive ; but the difficulty was to obtain this majority without 
an interval of delay which it was most important to avoid. It 
rarely happens that an individual can at once collect the ma¬ 
jority of the suffrages of a great people ; and this difficulty 
is enhanced in a republic of confederate states, w here local 
influences are apt to preponderate. The means by which it 
was proposed to obviate this second obstacle w^as to delegate 
the electoral powers of the nation to a body of representatives. 
The mode of election rendered a majority more probable ; for 
the few'er the electors are, the greater Is the chance of their 
coming to a final decision. It also oflered an additional pro¬ 
bability of a judicious choice. It then remained to- be decid¬ 
ed whether this right of election was to be intrusted to the 
legislative body, the habitual representative assembly of the 
nation, or w hether an electoral assembly should be fbnued 
for the express purpose of proceeding to the nomination of a 
president. The Americans chose the latter alternative, from 
a belief that the individuals who w^ere returned to make the 
law^s w^ere incompetent to represent the wishes of the nation 
in the election of its chief magistrate ; and that as they are 
chosen for more than a year, the constituency they represent¬ 
ed might have changed its opinion in that time. It was 
thought that if the legislature w’as empowered to elect 
the head of the executive power, its members would, for 
some time before the election, be exposed to the manoeuvres of 



THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


129 


corruption, and the tricks of intrigue; whereas, the special 
electors would, like a jury, remain mixed up with the crowd 
till the day of action, when they would appear for the sole 
purpose of giving their votes. 

It was therefore established that every slate should name a 
certain number of electors,* who in their turn should elect 
the president; and as it had been observed that the assemblies 
to which the choice of a chief magistrate had been intrusted 
in elective countries, inevitably became the centres of passion 
and of cabal ; that they sometimes usurped an authority 
which did not belong to them : and that their proceedings, or 
the uncertainty which resulted from them, were sometimes 
prolonged so much as to endanger the welfare of the state, 
it was determined that the electors should all vote upon the 
same day, without being convoked to the same place.f This 
double election rendered a majority probable, though not cer¬ 
tain ; for it was possible that as many differences might exist 
between the electors as between their constituents. In this 
case it was necessary to have recourse to one of three mea¬ 
sures ; either to appoint new electors, or to consult a second 
time those already appointed, or to defer the election to another 
authority. The first two of these alternatives, independently of 
the uncertainty of their results, were likely to delay the final 
decision, and to perpetuate an agitation which must always 
be accompanied with danger. The third expedient was there¬ 
fore adopted, and it was agreed that the votes should be trans¬ 
mitted sealed to the president of the senate, and that they 
should be opened and counted in the presence of the senate 
and the house of representatives. If none of the candidates 
has a majority, the house of representatives then proceeds 
immediately to elect the president; but with the condition 
that it must fix upon one of the three candidates who have the 
highest numbers.:}: 

* As many as it sends members to congress. The number of elect¬ 
ors at the election of 1S33 was 288. (See the National Calendar, 
1833.) 

t The electors of the same state assemble, but they transmit to the 
central government the list of their individual votes, and not the mere 
result of the vote of the majority. 

t In this case it is the majority of the states; and not the majority 
of the members, which decides the question; so that New York has not 
nmre influence in the debate than Rhode Island. Thus the citizens 
of the Union are first consulted as members of one and the same com¬ 
munity ; and, if they cannot agree, recourse is had to the division of 
the states, each of which has a separate and independent vote. This 
is one of the singularities of the federal constitution wliich can only be 
explained by the jar of conflicting interests. 


130 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


Thus it is only in case of an event which cannot often 
happen, and which can never be foreseen, that the election is 
intrusted to the ordinary representatives of the nation ; and 
even then they are obliged to choose a citizen who has already 
been designated by a powerful minority of the special electors. 
It is by this happy expedient that the respect due to the 
popular voice is combined with the utmost celerity of execu¬ 
tion and those precautions which the peace of the country 
demands. But the decision of the question by the house of 
representatives does not necessarily offer an immediate solu¬ 
tion of the difficulty, for the majority of that assembly may 
still be doubtful, and in this case the constitution prescribes 
no remedy. Nevertheless, by restricting the number of 
candidates to three, and by referring the matter to the judg¬ 
ment of an enlightened public body, it has smoothed all the 
obstacles* which are not inherent in the elective system. 

In the forty years which have elapsed since the promulga¬ 
tion of the federal constitution, the United States have twelve 
times chosen a president. Ten of these elections took place 
^simultaneously by the votes of the special electors in the 
different states. The house of representatives has only 
twice exercised its conditional privilege of deciding in cases 
of uncertainty: the first time was at the election of Mr. 
Jefferson in 1801 ; the second was in 1825, when Mr. John 
Quincy Adams was chosen. 


CRISIS OF THE ELECTION. 

The election may be considered as a national Crisis.—Why ?—Passions 
of the People.—Anxiety of the President.—Calm which succeeds the 
Agitation of the Election. 

( < 

I HAVE shown what the circumstances are which favored the 
adoption of the elective system in the United States, and what 
precautions were taken by the legislators to obviate its dangers. 
The Americans are accustomed to all kinds of elections ; and 
they know by experience the utmost degree of excitement 
which is compatible with security. The vast extent of the 
country, and the dissemination of the inhabitants, render a 
collision between parties less probable and less dangerous 
there than elsewhere. The political circumstances under 

* Jefferson, in 1801, was not elected until the thirty-sixth time of 
balloting. 






THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION^ 


131 


which the elections have hitherto been carried on, have pre¬ 
sented no real embarrassments to the nation. 

Nevertheless, the epoch of the election of a president of the 
United States may be considered as a crisis in the affairs of 
the nation. The influence which he exercises on public 
business is no doubt feeble and indirect; but the choice of the 
president, which is of small Importance to each individual 
citizen, concerns the citizens collectively; and however 
trifling an interest may be, it assumes a great degree of im¬ 
portance as soon as it becomes general. The president 
possesses but few means of rewarding his supporters in com¬ 
parison to the kings of Europe ; but the places which are at 
his disposal are sufficiently numerous to interest, directly or 
indirectly, several thousand electors in his success. More¬ 
over, political parties in the United States, as well as else¬ 
where, are led to rally around an individual, in order to 
acquire a more tangible shape in the eyes of the crowd, and 
the name of the candidate for the presidency is put forth as 
the symbol and personification of their theories. For these 
reasons'" parties are strongly interested in gaining the election, 
not so much with a view to the triumph of their principles 
under the auspices of the president elected, as to show, by 
the majority which returned him, the strength of the suppor- 
ers of those principles. ; 

For a long while before the appointed time is at hand, the 
election becomes the most important and the all-engrossing 
topic of discussion. The ardor of faction is redoubled ; and 
all the artificial passions which the imagination can create in 
the bosom of a happy and peaceful land are agitated and 
brought to light. The president, on the other hand, is ab¬ 
sorbed by I he cares of self-defence. He no longer governs 
for the interest of the state, but for that of his re-election ; he 
does homage to the majority, and instead of checking its pas¬ 
sions, as his duty commands him to do, he frequently courts 
its woret caprices. As the election draws near, the activity 
of intrigue and the agitation of the populace increase ; the 
citizens are divided into several camps, each of which as¬ 
sumes the name of its favorite candidate ; the whole nation 
glows with feverish excitement; the election is the daily 
theme of the public papers, the subject of private conversa¬ 
tion, the end of every thought and every action, the sole inter¬ 
est of the present. As soon as the choice is determined, this 
ardor is dispelled ; and as a calmer season returns, the cur¬ 
rent of the state, v’hich has nearly broken its banks, sinks to 



132 


THE FEDERAE CONSTI-TUTION^ 


its usual level; but who can refrain from astonishment af 
causes of the storm J 


KE-ELECTiO^^ OF THE EEESIUE'NT, 

When the Head of the eiEectitive Power is re-eii^ble, it is the State 
which is the Source of IntrigiTe an*^ Corruptsionr.—The desire of 
being re-elected^ the chief Aim of a President of the United States; 
—Disadvantage of the System peculiar to America.—The natural 
Evil of Democracy is that it subordinates all Authority to the slight¬ 
est Desires of the Majority.—Thc Re-election of the President en¬ 
courages' this Evil. 

It may be asked whether the legislatoTs of the United ^ate^ 
did right or wrong in allowing the re-eleetion of the presidents 
It seems at first sight contrary to all reason fo prevent the 
head of the executive power from being elected a second 
time^ The influence which the talents and the character of 
a single individual may exercise upon the fate of a whole peo- 
ple^ especially in critical circumstances or arduous times, is 
Well' known : a law preventing the re-election of the chief 
magistrate would deprive the, citizens of the surest pledge of 
the prosperity and the security of the commonwealth ; and,, 
by a singular inconsisteney, a man would be excluded fronr 
the government at the very time when he had shown his abil¬ 
ity in conducting its affairs. 

But if these arguments are strong, perhaps still more pow 
erful reasons may be advanced against them. Intrigue and 
corruption are the natural defects of elective government; bui 
when the head of the state can be re-elected^ these evils rise 
to a great height, and compromise the very existence of the 
counfryi When a simple candidate seeks to rise by intrigue, 
his manoeuvres must necessarily be limited fo a narrow 
sphere ; bu! when the chief magistrate enters the lists, he' 
borrows the strength of the government for his own purposes. 
In the former case the feeble resources of an individual are ir? 
action ^ in the latter, the state itself, with all its immense in¬ 
fluence, is busied in the work of corruption and cabal. The 
private citizen, who employs the most immoral practices to 
acquire power, can only act in a manner mdirectlv prejudi¬ 
cial to the public prosperity. But if the representative of the' 
executive descends into the lists, the cares of government 
dwindle into seeond-ra^e importance, and the success of his 
election is his first concern. All laws and negotiations are 



THE EeOErAL CoNSTlTt/TlON. 


ISS 

then to him nothing mote than electioneering schemes ; places 
become the reward of services rendered, not to the nation, 
but to Its chief; and the influence of the government, if not 
injurious to the country, Is at least no longer beneficial to the 
community for which it was created. 

It is impossible to consider the ordinary course of affairs iu 
the United States without perceiving that the desire of being 
re-elected is the chief aim of the president; that his whole 
administration, and even his most Indifferent measures, tend 
to this object; and that, as the crisis approaches, his personal 
Interest takes the place of his interest in the public good. 
The principle of re^ellglbility renders the corrunt Influence 
of elective governments still more extensive ancf pernicious, 
it tends to degrade the political morality of the people, and to 
substitute adroitness for patriotism. ' 

In America it exercises a still more fatal Influence on the 
sources of national existence. Every government seems to 
be afflicted by some evil inherent In its nature, and the genius 
of the legislator is shown In eluding Its attacks, A state 
may survive the influence of a host of bad laws, and the mis^ 
chief they cause Is frequently exaggerated ; but a law which 
encourages the growth of the canker within must prove fatal 
in the end, although its bad consequences may not be Imme¬ 
diately perceived. 

The principle of destruction in absolute monarchies lies iu 
the excessive and unreasonable extension of the prerogative 
of the crown ; and a measure tending to remove the constitu¬ 
tional provisions which counterbalance this Influence would 
be radically bad, even if Its consequences should long appear 
to be imperceptible. By a parity of reasoning. In countries 
governed by a democracy, where the people is perpetually 
drawing all authority to itself, the laws which increase or ac¬ 
celerate its action are the direct assailants of the very princi¬ 
ple of the government. 

The greatest proof of the ability of the American legislators 
Is, that they clearly discerned tfils truth, and that they had 
tlie courage to act up to It. They conceived that a certain 
authority above the body of the people was necessary, which 
should enjoy a degree of Independence, without however be¬ 
ing entirely beyond the popular control ; an authority which 
would be forced to comply with the perindment determinations 
of the majority, but which would be able to resist Its caprices, 
and to refuse its most dangerous demands. To this end they 
centred the whole executive power of the nation In a single 
arm; they granted extensive prerogatives to the president, 
13 



134 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


and they armed him with the veto to resist the encroachments 
of the legislature. 

But by introducing the principle of re-election, they partly 
destroyed their work ; and they rendered the president but 
little inclined to exert the great power they liad invested in 
his hands. , If ineligible a second time, the president would 
be far from independent of the people, for his responsibility 
would not be lessened ; but the favor of the people would not 
be so necessary to him as to induce him to court it by hu¬ 
moring its desires. If re-eligible (and this is more especially 
true at the present day, when political morality is relaxed, 
and when great men are rare), the president of the United 
States becomes an easy tool in the hands of the majority. 
He adopts its likings and its animosities, he hastens to antici¬ 
pate its wishes, he forestalls its complaints, he yields to its 
idlest cravings, and instead of guiding it, as the legislature 
intended that he should do, he is ever ready to follow its bid¬ 
ding. Thus, in order not to deprive the state of the talents of 
an individual, those talents have been rendered almost useless, 
and to reserve an expedient for extraordinary perils the coun¬ 
try has been exposed to daily dangers. 

[The question of the propriety of leaving the president re-eligible, is 
one of that class which probably must for ever remain undecided. The 
author himself, at page i25, gives a strong reason for re-eligibility, “ so 
that the chance of a prolonged administration may inspire him with 
hopeful undertakings for the public good, and with the means of carry¬ 
ing them into execution,”—considerations of great weight. There is 
an important fact bearing upon this question, which should be stated 
in connexion with it. President Washington established the practice 
of declining a third election, and every one of his successors, either from 
a sense of its propriety or from apprehensions of the force of public 
opinion, has followed the example. So that it has become as much a 
part of the constitution, that no citizen can be a third time elected 
president, as if it were expressed in that instrument in words. This 
may perhaps be considered a fair adjustment of ob jections on either side. 
Those against a continued and perpetual re-eligibility are certainly 
met: while the arguments in favor of an opportunity to prolong ail 
administration under circumstances that may justify it, are allowed 
their due weight. One effect of this practical interpolation of the con¬ 
stitution unquestionably is, to increase the chances of a president’s 
being once re-elected ; as men will be more disposed to acquiesce in a 
measure that thus practically excludes the individual from ever again 
entering the field of competition .—Aiixerican Ediior.‘\ 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


135 


FEDERAL COURTS.* 

Political Importance of the Judiciary in the United States.—Difficulty 
of treating this Subject.—Utility of judicial Power in Confedera¬ 
tions,—What Tribunals could be introduced into the Union.—Ne¬ 
cessity of establishing federal Courts of Justice.—Organization of 
the national Judiciary.—The Supreme Court.—In what it differs 
from all known Tribunals. 

I HAVE inquired into the legislative and executive power of 
the Union, and the judicial power now remains to be ex¬ 
amined ; but in this place I cannot conceal my fears from 
the reader. Judicial institutions exercise a great influence 
on the condition of the Anglo-Americans, and they occupy a 
prominent place among what are properly called political 
institutions: in this respect they are peculiarly deserving of 
our attention. But I am at a loss to explain the political ac¬ 
tion of the American tribunals without entering into some 
technical details on their constitution and their forms of pro¬ 
ceeding ; and I know not how to descend to these minutiae 
without wearying the curiosity of the reader by the natural 
aridity of the subject, or without risking to fall into obscurity 
through a desire to be succinct. I can scarcely hope to escape 
these various evils; for if I appear too prolix to a man of 
the world, a lawyer may on the other hand complain of my 
brevity. But these are the natural disadvantages of my sub¬ 
ject, and more especially of the point which I am about to 
discuss. 

The great difficulty was, not to devise the constitution of 
the federal government, but to find out a method of enforcing 
its laws. Governments have in general but two means of 
overcoming the opposition of the people they govern, viz., 
the physical force which is at their own disposal, and the 
moral force which they derive from the decisions of the courts 
of justice. 

A government which should have no other means of ex- 
acting obedience than open war, must be very near its ruin; 

* See chapter vi., entitled, “ Judicial Power in the United States.” 
This chapter explains the general principles of the American theory 
of judicial institutions. See also the federal constitution, art. 3. See 
the Federalist, Nos. 78-83, inclusive: and a work entitled, “ Consti¬ 
tutional Law, being a View of the Practice and Jurisdiction of the 
Courts of the United States,” by Thomas Sergeant. See Story, pp 
134, 162, 489, 511, 581, 668 ; and the organic law of the 24th Septem¬ 
ber, 1789, in the collection of the laws of the United States, by Story, 
vol. i., p. 53. 






136 


THE FEDERAL COxNSTlTUTlON. 


for one of two alternatives would then probably occur: if its 
authority was small, and its character temperate, it would 
not resort to violence till the last extremity, and it would 
connive at .a number of partial acts of insubordination, in 
which case the state would gradually fall into anarchy; if it 
Was enterprising and powerful, it would perpetually have re¬ 
course to its physical strength, and would speedily degene¬ 
rate into a military despotism. So that its activity would 
not be less prejudicial to the community than its inaction. 

The great end of justice is to substitute the notion of right for 
that of violence; and to place a legal barrier between the power 
of the government and the use of physical force. The au¬ 
thority which is awarded to the intervention of a court of 
justice by the general opinion of mankind is so surprisingly 
great, that it clings to the mere formalities of justice, and 
gives a bodily influence to the shadow of the law. The moral 
force which courts of justice possess renders the introduction 
of physical force exceedingly rare, and it is very frequently 
substituted for it; but if the latter proves to be indispensable, 
its power is doubled by the association of the idea of law. 

A federal government stands in greater need of the support 
of judicial institutions than any other, because it is naturally 
weak, and opposed to formidable opposition.’** If it were 
always obliged to resort to violence in the first instance, it 
coula not fulfil its task. The Union, therefore, required a 
national judiciary to enforce the obedience of the citizens to 
the laws, and to repel the attacks which might be directed 
against them. The question then remained what tribunals 
Were to exercise these privileges ; were they to be intrusted 
to the courts of justice which were already organized in 
every state ? or was it necessary to create federal courts ? It 
may easily be proved that the Union could not adapt the judi¬ 
cial power of the state to its wants. The separation of the 
judiciary from the administrative power of the state, no doubt 
affects the security of every citizen, and the liberty of all. 
But it is no less important to the existence of the nation that 
these several powers should have the same origin, should fol- 


* Federal laws are those which most require courts of justice, 
and those at the same time which have most rarely established them. 
The reason is that confederations have usually been formed by inde¬ 
pendent states, which entertained no real intention of obeying the 
central government, and which very readily ceded the right of com¬ 
manding to the federal executive, and very prudently reserved the right 
of non-compliance to themselves. 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


137 


low the same principles, and act in the same sphere; in a 
word, that they should be correlative and homogeneous. No 
one, I presume, ever suggested the advantage of trying offen¬ 
ces committed in France, by a foreign court of justice, in 
order to ensure the impartiality of the judges. The Ameri¬ 
cans form one people in relation to their fed^eral government; 
but in the bosom of this people divers political bodies have 
been allowed to subsist, which are dependent on the national 
government in a few points, and independent in all the rest 
—which have all a distinct origin,, maxims peculiar to them¬ 
selves, and special means of carrying on their affairs. To 
intrust the execution of the laws of the Union to tribunals 
instituted by these political bodies, would be to allow foreign 
judges to preside over the nation. Nay more, not only is 
each state foreign to the Union at large, but it is in perpetual 
opposition to the common interests, since whatever authority 
the Union loses turns to the advantage of the states. Thus 
to enforce the laws of the Union by means of the tribunals 
of the states, would be to allow not only foreign, but partial 
judges to preside over the nation. 

But the number, still more than the mere character, of the 
tribunals of the states rendered them unfit for the service of 
t^e nation. When the federal constitution was, formed, there 
were already thirteen courts of justice in the United States 
which decided causes without appeal. That number is now 
increased to twenty-four. To suppose that a state can sul>- 
sist, when its fundamental laws may be subjected to four- 
and-twenty different interpretations at the same time, is to 
advance a proposition alike contrary to reason and to expe¬ 
rience. 

The American legislators therefore agreed to create a fede¬ 
ral judiciary power to apply the laws of the Union, and to 
determine certain questions affecting general interests, which 
were carefully determined beforehand. The entire judicial 
power of the Union was centred in one tribunal, which was 
denominated the supreme court of the United States. But, 
to facilitate the expedition of business, inferior courts were 
appended to it, which were empowered to decide causes of 
small importance without appeal, and with appeal causes of 
more magnitude. The members of the supreme court are 
named neither by the people nor the legislature, but by the 
president of the United States, acting with the advice of the 
senate. In order to render them independent of the other 
authorities, their office was made inalienable; and it was 
determined that their salary, when once fixed, should not be 
13* 


138 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


altered by the legislature.* It was easy to proclaim the prin¬ 
ciple of a federal judiciary, but difficulties multiplied when 
the extent of its jurisdiction was to be determined. '' 


MEANS OF DETERMINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL 

COURTS. 

Difficulty of determining the Jurisdiction of separate courts of Justice 
in Confederation.—The Courts of the Union obtained the Right of 
fixing their own Jurisdiction.—In what Respect this' Rule atta^^ks 
the Portion of Sovereignty reserved to the several States.—'I'he 
Sovereignty of these States restricted by the Laws, and the Inter¬ 
pretation of the Laws.—Consequently, the Danger of the several 
States is more apparent than real. 

As the constitution of the United States recognized two dis¬ 
tinct powers, in presence 'of each other, represented in a 
judicial point of view by two distinct classes of courts of 
justice, the utmost care which could be taken in defining 
their separate jurisdictions would have been insufficient' to 
prevent frequent collisions between those tribunals. The 
question then arose, to whom the right of deciding the com¬ 
petency of each court was to be referred. 

In nations which constitute a single body politic, when a 
question is debated between two courts relating to their mutual 
jurisdiction, a third tribunal is generally within reach to 
decide the difference ; and this is effected without difficulty, 
because in these nations the questions of judicial competency 
have no connexion with the privileges of the national supre- 

* The Union was divided into districts, in each of which a resident 
federal judge was appointed, and the court in which he presided was 
termed a “ district court.” Each of the judges of the supreme court 
annually visits a certain portion of the Republic, in order to try the 
most important causes upon the spot; the court presided over by this 
magistrate is styled a “ circuit court.” Lastly, all the most serious 
cases of litigation are broughf before the supreme court, which holds 
a solemn session once a year, at which all the judges of the circuit 
courts must attend. The jury w'as introduced into the federal courts 
in the same manner, and in the same cases as into the courts of the 
states. 

It will be observed that no analogy exists between the supreme 
court of the United States and the French cour de cassation, since the 
latter only hears appeals. The supreme court decides upon the evi¬ 
dence of the fact, as well as upon the law of the case, whereas the 
cour de cassation does not pronounce a decision of its own, but refers 
the cause to the arbitration of another tribunal. See the law of 21th 
September, 1789, laws of the United States, by Story, vol. i., p. 03. 



THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


139 


macy. But it was impossible to create an arbiter between a 
superior court of the Union and the superior court of a sepa¬ 
rate state, which would not belong to one of these two classes. 
It was therefore necessary to allow one of these courts to 
judge its own cause, and to take or to retain cognizance of 
the point which was contested. To grant this privilege to 
the different courts of the states, would have been to destroy 
the sovereignty of the Union de facto, after having established 
it de jure ; for the interpretation of the constitution would 
soon have restored that portion of independence to the states 
of which the terms of that act deprived them. The object 
of the creation of a federal tribunal was to prevent the courts 
of the states from deciding questions affecting the national 
interests in their own department, and so to form a uniform 
body of jurisprudence for the interpretation of the laws of 
the Union. This end would not have been accomplished if 
the courts of the several states had been competent to decide 
upon cases in their separate capacities, from which they were 
obliged to abstain as federal tribunals. The supreme court 
of the United States was therefore invested with the right of 
determining all questions of jurisdiction.* 

This was a severe blow upon the independence of the 
states, which was thus restricted not only by the laws, but by 
the interpretation of them ; by one limit which was known, 
and by another which was dubious ; by a rule which was 
certain, and a rule which was arbitrary. It is true the con¬ 
stitution had laid down the precise limits of the federal supre¬ 
macy, but whenever this supremacy is contested by one of 
the states, a federal tribunal decides the question. Never¬ 
theless, the dangers with which the independence of the 
states was threatened by this mode of proceeding are less 
serious than they appear to be. We shall see hereafter that 
in America the real strength of the country is vested in the 
provincial far more than in the federal government. The 
federal judges are conscious of the relative weakness of the 
power in whose name they act, and they are more inclined 
to abandon a right of jurisdiction in cases where it is justly 

* In order to diminish the number of these suits, it was decided that 
in a great many federal causes, the courts of the states should be em¬ 
powered to decide conjointly with those of the Union, the losing party 
having then a right of appeal to the supreme court of the United 
States. The supreme court of Virginia contested the right of the 
supreme court of the United States to judge an appeal from its deci¬ 
sions, but unsuccessfully. See Kent’s Commentaries, vol. i., pp, 
300, 370, et seq. ; Story’s Commentaries, p. 646; and “ The Organic 
Law of the United States,” vol. i., p. 35. 


140 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


their own, than to assert a privilege to which they have no 
legal claim. 


DIFFERENT CASES OF JURISDICTION. 

The Matter and the Party are the first Conditions of the federal Ju¬ 
risdiction.—Suits in which Ambassadors are engaged.—Suits of the 
Union.—Of a separate State.—By whom tried.—Causes resulting 
from the Laws of the Union. Why judged by the federal Tribu¬ 
nal.—Causes relating to the Non-performance of Contracts tried by 
the federal Courts.—Consequences of this Arrangement. 

After having appointed the means of fixing the competency 
of the federal courts, the legislators of the Union defined the 
cases which should come within their jurisdiction. It was 
established, on the one hand, that certain parties must always 
be brought before the federal courts, without any regard to 
the special nature of the cause ; and, on the other, that cer¬ 
tain causes must always be brought before the same courts, 
without any regard to the quality of the parties in the suit. 
These distinctions were therefore admitted to be the bases of 
the federal jurisdiction. 

Ambassadors are the representatives of nations in a state 
of amity with the Union, and whatever, concerns these per¬ 
sonages concerns in some degree the whole Union. When 
an ambassador is a party in a suit, that suit affects the wel¬ 
fare of the nation, and a federal tribunal is naturally called 
upon to decide it. 

The Union itself may be involved in legal proceedings, 
and in this case it would be alike contrary to the customs 
of all nations, and to common sense, to appeal to a tribunal 
representing any other sovereignty than its own ; the fede¬ 
ral courts, therefore, take cognizance of these affairs. 

When two parties belonging to two different states are en¬ 
gaged in a suit, the case cannot with propriety be brought 
before a court of either state. The surest expedient is to 
select a tribunal like that of the Union, which can excite the 
suspicions of neither party, and which offers the most natural 
as well as the most certain remedy. 

When the two parties are not private individuals, but states, 
an important political consideration is added to the same mo¬ 
tive of equity. The quality of the parties, in this case, gives 
a national importance to all their disputes ; and the most tri- 



THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


141 


fling litigation of the states may be said to involve the peace 
of the whole Union.* 

The nature of the cause frequently prescribes the rule of 
competency. Thus all the questions which concern maritime 
commerce evidently fall under the cognizance of the federal 
tribunals.f Almost all these questions are connected with 
the interpretation of the law of nations; and in this respect 
they essentially interest the Union in relation to foreign pow¬ 
ers. Moreover, as the sea is not included within the limits 
of any peculiar jurisdiction, the national courts can only hear 
causes which originate in maritime affairs. 

The constitution comprises under one head almost all the 
cases which by iheir very nature come within the limits of 
the federal courts. The rule which it lays down is simple, 
but pregnant with an entire system of ideas, and with a vast 
multitude of facts. It declares that the judicial power of the 
supreme court shall extend to all cases in law and equity 
arising under the laws of the United States. 

Two examples will put the intentions of the legislator in 
the clearest light:— 

The constitution prohibits the states from making laws on 
the value and circulation of money : if, notwithstanding this 
prohibition, a state passes a law of this kind, with which the 
interested parties refuse to comply because it is contrary to 
the constitution, the case must come before a federal court, 
because it arises under the laws of the United States. Again, 
if difficulties arise in the levying of import duties which have 
been voted by congress, the federal court must decide the 
case, because it arises under the interpretation of a law of the 
United States. 

This rule is in perfect accordance with the fundamental 
principles of the federal constitution. The Union as it was 
established in 1789, possesses, it is true, a limited supremacy ; 
but it was intended that within its limits it should form one 

* The constitution also says that the federal courts shall decide 
“ controversies between a state and the citizens of another state.” And 
here a most important question of a constitutional nature arose, which 
was, whether the jurisdiction given by the constitution in cases in 
which a state is a party, extended to suits brought against a state as 
well as by it, or was exclusively confined to the latter. This question 
was most elaborately considered in the case of Chisholme v. Georgia, 
and was decided by the majority of the supreme court in the affirma¬ 
tive. The decision created general alarm among the states, and an 
amendment was proposed and ratified by which the power was entirely 
taken away so far as it regards suits brought against 2 i state. See Sto¬ 
ry’s Commentaries, p. 624, or in the large edition, § 1677, 
t As, for instance, all cases of piracy. 


142 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


and the same people.* Within those limits the Union is 
sovereign. When this point is established and admitted, the 
inference is easy ; for if it be acknowledged that the United 
States constitute one and the same people within the bounds 
prescribed by their constitution, it is impossible to refuse them 
the rights which belong to other nations. But it has been 
allowed, from the origin of society, that every nation has the 
right of deciding by its own courts those questions which con¬ 
cern the execution of its own laws. To this it is answered, 
that the Union is in so singular a position, that in relation to 
some matters it constitutes a people, and that in relation to 
all the rest it is a nonentity. But the inference to be drawn 
is, that in the laws relating to these matters the Union pos¬ 
sesses all the rights of absolute sovereignty. The difficulty 
is to know what these matters are ; and when once it is re¬ 
solved (and we have shown how it was resolved, in speaking 
of the means of determining the jurisdiction of the federal 
courts), no farther doubt can arise ; for as soon as it is es¬ 
tablished that a suit is federal, that is to say, that it belongs 
to the share of sovereignty reserved by the constitution to the 
Union, the natural consequence is that it should come within 
the jurisdiction of a federal court. 

Whenever the laws of the United States are attacked, or 
whenever they are resorted to in self-defence, the federal 
courts must be appealed to. Thus the jurisdiction of the tri¬ 
bunals of the Union extends and narrows its limits exactly in 
the same ratio as the sovereignty of the Union augments or 
decreases. We have shown that the principal aim of the 
legislators of 1789 was to divide the sovereign authority into 
two parts. In the one they placed the control of all the gen¬ 
eral interests of the Union, in the other the control of the spe¬ 
cial interest of its component states. Their chief solicitude 
was to arm the federal government with sufficient power to 
enable it to resist, within its sphere, the encroachments of the 
several states. As for these communities, the principle of 
independence within certain limits of their own was adopted 
in their behalf; and they were concealed from the inspection, 
and protected from the control, of the central government. In 
speaking of the division of the authority, I observed that this 
latter principle had not always been held sacred, since the 

* This principle was in some measure restricted by the introduction 
of the several states as independent powers into the senate, and by 
allowing them to vote separately in the house of representatives when 
the president is elected by that body ; but these are exceptions, and 
the contrary principle is the rule. 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


143 


states are prevented from passing certain laws, which appa¬ 
rently belong to their own particular sphere of interest. 
When a state of the Union passes a law of this kind, the citi- 
zens who are injured by its execution can appeal to the fede¬ 
ral courts. 

[The remark of the author, that whenever the laws of the United 
States are attacked, or whenever they are resorted to in self-defence, the 
federal courts must be appealed to, which is more strongly expressed 
in the original, is erroneous and calculated to mislead on a point of 
some importance. By the grant of power to the courts of the United 
States to decide certain cases, the powers of the state courts are not 
suspended, but are exercised concurrently, subject to an appeal to the 
courts of the United States. But if the decision of the state court is in 
favor of the right, title, or privilege claimed under the constitution, a 
treaty, or under a law of congress, no appeal lies to the federal courts. 
The appeal is given only when the decision is against the claimant 
under the treaty or law. See 3d Cranch, 268. 1 Wheaton, 304.— 

American Editor. 

Thus the jurisdiction of the general courts extends not only 
to all the cases which arise under the laws of the Union, but 
also to those which arise under laws made by the several 
states in opposition to the constitution. The states are pro¬ 
hibited from making ex-post-facto laws in criminal cases ; 
and any person condemned by virtue of a law of this kind 
can appeal to the judicial power of the Union. The states 
are likewise prohibited from making laws which may have a 
tendency to impair the obligations of contracts.* If a citizen 
thinks that an obligation of tliis kind is impaired by a law 
passed in his state, he may refuse to obey it, and may appeal 
to the federal courts.t 

* It is perfectly clear, says Mr. Story (Commentaries, p. 503, or in 
the large edition, § 1379), that any law which enlarges, abridges, or in 
any manner changes the intention of the parties, resulting from the 
stipulations in the contract, necessarily impairs it. He gives in the same 
place a very long and careful definition of what is understood by a 
contract in federal jurisprudence. A grant made by the state to a private 
individual, and accepted by him, is a contract, and cannot be revoked 
by any future law. A charter granted by the state to a company is a 
contract, and equally binding to the state as to the grantee. The clause 
of the constitution here referred to ensures, therefore, the existence of 
a great part of acquired rights, but not of all. Property may legally 
be held, though it may not have passed into the possessor’s hands by 
means of a contract; and its possession is an acquired right, not 
guarantied by the federal constitution. 

t A remarkable instance of this is given by Mr. Story (p. 508, or in 
the large edition, § 1388). “ Dartmouth college in New Hampshire 

had been founded % a charter granted to certain individuals before the 
American revolution, and its trustees formed a corporation under this 



144 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


This provision appears to me to be the most serious 
attack upon the independence of the states. The rights 
awarded to the federal government for purposes of obvious 
national importance are definite and easily comprehensible ; 
but those with w^hich this last clause invests it are not either 
clearly appreciable or accurately defined. For there are vast 
numbers of political laws which influence the obligations of 
contracts, which may thus furnish an easy pretext for the 
aggressions of the central authority. 

[The fears of the author respecting the danger to the independence 
of the states of that provision of the constitution, which gives to the 
federal courts the authority of deciding when a state law impairs the 
obligation of a contract, are deemed quite unfounded. The citizens of 
every state have a deep interest in preserving the obligation of the con¬ 
tracts entered into by them in other states ; indeed without such a 
controlling power, “ commerce among several states ” could not exist. 
The existence of this common arbiter is of the last importance to the 
continuance of the Union itself, for if there were no peaceable means of 
enforcing the obligations of contracts, independent of all state authority, 
the states themselves would inevitably come in collision in their efforts 
to protect their respective citizens from the consequences of the legis¬ 
lation of another state. 

M. De Tocqueville’s observation, that the rights with which the 
clause in question invests the federal government “ are not clearly 
appreciable or accurately defined,” proceeds upon a mistaken view of 
the clause itself. It relates to the obligation of a contract, and forbids 
any act by which that obligation is impaired. To American lawyers, 
this seems to be as precise and definite as any rule can be made by 
human language. The distinction between the right to the fruits of a 
contract, and the time, tribunal, and manner, in which that right is to 
be enforced, seems very palpable. At all events, since the decision 

charter. The legislature of New Hampshire had, without the consent 
of this corporation, passed an act changing the organization of the 
original provincial charter of the college, and transferring all the rights, 
privileges, and franchises, from the old charter trustees to new trustees 
appointed under the act. The constitutionality of the act was contested, 
and after solemn arguments, it was deliberately held by the supreme 
court that the provincial charter was a contract within the meaning of 
the constitution (art. i., sect. 10), and that the amendatory act was 
utterly void, as impairing the obligation of that charter. The college 
was deemed, like other colleges of private foundation, to be a private 
eleemosynary institution, endowed by its charter with a capacity to take 
property unconnected with the government. Its funds were bestowed 
upon the faith of the charter, and those funds consisted entirely of 
private donations. It is true that the uses were in some sense public, 
that is, for the general benefit, and not for the mere benefit of the corpo¬ 
rators ; but this did not make the corporation a public corporation. It 
was a private institution for general charity. It was not distinguishable 
in principle from a private donation, vested in private trustees, for a 
public charity, or for a particular purpose of beneficence. And the 
state itself, if it had bestowed funds upon a charity of the same nature, 
could not resume those funds.” 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


145 


of the supreme court of the United States in tho^ cases in which this 
clause has been discussed, no difficulty is found, practically, in under¬ 
standing the exact limits of the prohibition. 

The next observation of the author, that there are vast numbers 
of political laws which influence the obligations of contracts, which 
may thus furnish an easy pretext for the aggressions of the central 
authority,” is rather obscure. Is it intended that political laws may 
be passed by the central authority, influencing the obligation of a con¬ 
tract, and thus the contracts themselves be destroyed ? The answer to 
this would be, that the question would not arise under the clause for¬ 
bidding laws impairing the obligation of contracts, for that clause 
applies only to the states and not to the federal government. 

If it be intended, that the states may find it necessary to pass politi¬ 
cal laws, which affect contracts, and that under the pretence of vindi¬ 
cating the obligation of contracts, the central authority may make 
aggressions on the states and annul their political laws :—the answer 
is, that the motive to the adoption of the clause was to reach laws of 
every description, political as well as all others, and that it was the 
abuse by the states of what may be called political laws, viz.: acts 
confiscating demands of foreign creditors, that gave rise to the prohi¬ 
bition. The settled doctrine now is, that states may pass laws in 
respect to the making of contracts, may prescribe what contracts 
shall be made, and how, but that they cannot impair any that are 
already made. 

The writer of this note is unwilling to dismiss the subject, without 
remarking upon what he must think a fundamental error of the author, 
which is exhibited in the passage commented on, as well as in other 
passages :—an^^that is, in supposing the judiciary of the United States, 
and particularly the supreme court, to be a part of the political fede¬ 
ral government, and as the ready instrument to execute its designs 
upon the state authorities. Altliough the judges are in form commis¬ 
sioned by the United States, yet, in fact, they are appointed by the dele¬ 
gates of the state, in the senate of the United States, concurrently 
with, and acting upon, the nomination of the president. If the legis¬ 
lature of each state in the Union were to elect a judge of the supreme 
court, he would not be less a political'officer of the United States than 
he now is. In truth, the judiciary have no political duties to perform; 
they are arbiters chosen by the federal and state governments, jointly, 
and when appointed, as independent of the one as of the other. They 
cannot be removed without the consent of the states represented in the 
senate, and they can be removed without the consent of the president, 
and against his wishes. Such is the theory of the constitution. And 
it has been felt practically, in the rejection by the senate of persons 
nominated as judges, by a president of the same political party with a 
majority of the senators. Two instances of this kind occurred during 
the administration of Mr. Jefferson. 

If it be alleged that they are exposed to the influence of the execu¬ 
tive of the United States, by the expectation of offices in his gift, the 
answer is, that judges of state courts are equally exposed to the same 
influence—that all state officers, from the highest to the lowest, are in 
the same predicament; and that this circumstance does not, therefore, 
deprive thern of the character of impartial and independent arbiters. 

These observations receive confirmation from every recent decision 
of the supreme court of the United States, in which certain laws of 
individual states have been sustained, in cases where, to say the least, 
it was very questionable whether they did not infringe the provisions 
14 



140 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITtrTIOIsr, 


of the consfitutioTi, and where a digposition to construe those provi¬ 
sions broadly and extensively, would have found very plausible grounds 
to indulge itself in annulling the state laws refeiTed to. See the cases 
of City of JVew York vs. Miln, l\th Peters, 10^ ; Briscor vs. the 
Ba7ik of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, ih., 257,' Charles River 
Bridge vs. Warren Bridge, ib., 420.— 'American Ed.'} 


PROCEDURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, 

Natural Weakness of the judiciary Power in Confederations.—Legis¬ 
lators ought to strive as much as possible to bring private'Individu- 
als, and not States, before the federal Courts.—How the Americans 
have succeeded in this.—Direct Prosecutions of private Individuals 
in the federal Courts.—-Indirect Prosecution in the States which 
violate the Laws of the Union.—The Decrees of the Supreme Court 
enervate but do not destroy the provincial Laws. 

1 HAVE shown w’hat the privileges of the federal courts are, 
and it is no less important'to point out the manner in which 
they are exercised. The irresistible authority of justice in 
countries in which the sovereignty is undivided, is derived 
from the fact that the tribunals of those countries represent 
the entire nation at issue with the individual against whom 
their decree is directed; and the idea of power is thus intro¬ 
duced to corroborate the idea of right. But this is not always 
the case in countries in which the sovereignty is divided : in 
them the judicial power is more frequently opposed to a frac¬ 
tion of the nation than to an isolated individual, and its moral 
authority and physical strength are consequently diminished. 
In federal states the power of the judge is naturally decreased, 
and that of the justiciable parties is augmented. The aim 
of the legislator in confederate states ought therefore to be, 
to render the position of the courts of justice analogous to 
that which they occupy in countries where the sovereignty 
is undivided; in other words, his efibrts ought constantly to 
tend to maintain the judicial power of the confederation as 
the representative‘of the nation, and the justiciable party as 
the representative of an individual interest. ^ 

Every government, whatever may be its constitution, re¬ 
quires the' means of constraining its subjects to discharge 
their obligations, and of protecting its privileges from their 
assaults. As far as the direct action of the government 
on the community is concerned, the constitution of the Uni¬ 
ted States contrived, by a master-stroke of policy, that the 
federal courts, acting in the name of the laws, should only 
take cognizance of parties in an individual capacity. For, 



THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


147 


as it had been declared that the Union consisted of one 
and the same people within the limits laid down by the 
constitution, the inference was that the government created 
by this constitution, and acting within these limits, was in¬ 
vested with all the privileges of a national government, one 
of the principal of which is the right of transmitting its 
injunctions directly to the private citizen. When, for in¬ 
stance, the Union votes an impost, it does not apply to the 
states for the levying of it, but to every American citizen, 
in proportion to his assessment. The supreme court, which 
is empowered to enforce the execution of this law of tlie 
Union, exerts its influence not upon a refractory state, but 
upon the private taxpayer; and, like the judicial power of 
other nations, it is opposed to the person of an individual. 
It is to be observed that the Union chose its own antagonist; 
and as that antagonist is feeble, he is naturally worsted. 

But the difficulty increases when the proceedings are 
not brought forward hy but against the Union. The con¬ 
stitution recognizes the legislative power of the state; and 
a law so enacted may impair the privileges of the Union, 
in which case a collision is unavoidable between that body 
and the state which had passed the law; and it only re¬ 
mains to select the least dangerous remedy, which is very 
clearly deducible from the general principles I have before 
established.* ^ 

It may be conceived that, in the case under considera¬ 
tion, the Union might have sued the state before a federal 
court, which would have annulled the act; and by this 
means it would have adopted a natural course of proceed¬ 
ing: but the judicial power would have been placed in 
open hostility to the state, and it was desirable to avoid 
this predicament as much as possible. The Americans 
hold that it is nearly impossible that a new law should 
not impair the interests of some private individuals by its 
provisions : these private interests are assumed by the Ame¬ 
rican legislators as the ground of attack against such mea¬ 
sures as may be prejudicial to the Union, and it is to these 
cases that the protection of the supreme court is extended. 

Suppose a state vends a certain portion of its territory to 
a company, and that a year afterwards it passes a law by 
which the territory is otherwise disposed of, and that clause 
of the constitution, which prohibits laws impairing the obliga¬ 
tion of contracts, is violated. When the purchaser under 

*See chapter vi., on judicial power in America. 


148 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


the second act appears to take possession, the possessor 
under the'first act brings his action before the tribunals of 
the Union, and causes the title of the claimant to bc pro¬ 
nounced null and void.* Thus, in point of fact, the judicial 
power of the Union is contesting the claims of the sovereignty 
of a state; but it only acts indirectly and upon a special ap¬ 
plication of detail: it attacks the law in its consequences, not 
in its principle, and it rather weakens than destroys‘it. 

The last hypothesis that remained was that each state 
formed a corporation enjoying a separate existence and dis¬ 
tinct civil rights, and that it could therefore sue or be sued 
before a tribunal. Thus a state -could bring an action 
against another state. In this instance the Union was not 
called upon to contest a provincial law, but to try a suit in 
which a state was a party. This suit was perfectly similar 
to any other cause, except that the quality of the parties was 
different; and here the danger pointed out at the beginning 
of this chapter exists with less chance of being avoided. 
The inherent disadvantage of the very essence of federal con¬ 
stitutions is, that they engender parties in the, bosom of the 
nation which present powerful obstacles to the free course of 
justice. 


HIGH RANK OF THE SUPREME COURTS AMONG THE GREAT 
POWERS OF STATE. 

No Nation ever constituted so great a judicial Power as the Americans, 
Extent of its Prerogative.—Its political Influence.—The Tranquillity 
and the very Existence of the Union depend on the Discretion of 
the seven federal Judges. 

When we have successfully examined in detail the organi¬ 
zation of the supreme court, and the entire prerogatives 
which it exercises, we shall readily admit that a more impos¬ 
ing judicial power was never constituted by any people. 
The supreme court is placed at the head of all known tribu¬ 
nals, both by the nature of its rights and the class of justici¬ 
able parties which it controls. ' 

' In all the civilized countries of Europe, the government 
has always shown the greatest repugnance to allow the cases 
to which it was itself a party to be decided by the ordinary 
course of justice. This repugnance naturally attains its 

* See Kent’s Commentaries, vol. i., p. 3S7. 



THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


149 


utmost height in an absolute government; and, on the other 
hand, the privileges of the courts of justice are extended with 
the increasing liberties of the people ; but no European na¬ 
tion has at present held that all judicial controversies, with¬ 
out regard to their origin, can be decided by the judges of 
common law. 

In America this theory has been actually put in practice; 
and the supreme court of the United States is the sole tribu¬ 
nal of the nation. Its power extends to all the cases arising 
under laws and treaties made by the executive and legisla¬ 
tive authorities, to all cases of admiralty and maritime juris¬ 
diction, and in general to all points which affect the law of 
nations. It may even be affirmed that, although its constitu¬ 
tion is essentially judicial, its prerogatives are almost entirely 
•political. Its sole object is to enforce the execution of the 
laws of the Union ; and the Union only regulates the rela¬ 
tions of the government with the citizens, and of the nation 
w'ith foreign powers : the relations of citizens among them¬ 
selves are almost exclusively regulated by the sovereignty of 
the states. 

'A second and still greater cause of the preponderance of 
this court may be adduced. In the nations of Europe the 
courts of justice are only called upon to try the controversies 
of private individuals; but the supreme court of the United 
States summons sovereign powers to its bar. When the 
clerk of the court advances on the steps oUthe tribunal, and 
simply says, “ The state of New York versus the state 
of Ohio,” it is impossible not to feel that the court which he 
addresses is no ordinary body ; and when it is recollected that 
one of these parties represents one million, and the other two 
millions of men, one is struck by the responsibility of the 
seven judges whose decision is about to satisfy or to disappoint 
so large a number of their fellow-citizens. 

The peace, the prosperity, and the very existence of the 
Union, are invested in the hands of the seven judges. With¬ 
out their active co-operation the constitution would be a dead 
letter: the executive appeals to them for assistance~'against 
the encroachments of the legislative powers ; the legislature 
demands their protection from the designs of the executive ; 
they defend the Union from the disobedience of the states, the 
states from the exaggerated claims of the Union, the public 
interest against the interests of private citizens, and the con¬ 
servative spirit of order'' against the fleeting innovations of 
democracy. Their power is enormous, but it is clothed in 
the authority of public opinion. They are the all-powerful 
14* 



150 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


guardians of a people which respects law; but they would' 
be impotent against popular neglect or popular contempt. 
The force of public opinion is the most intractable of agents, 
because its exact limits cannot be defined ^ and it is not less 
dangerous to exceed, than to remain below the boundary pre¬ 
scribed. , ^ 

The federal judges must not only be good citizens, and 
men possessed of that information and integrity which are 
indispensable to magistrates, but they must be statesmen— 
politicians, not unread in the signs of the times, not afraid to 
brave the obstacles which can be subdued, nor slow to turn 
aside such encroaching elements as may threaten the supre¬ 
macy- of the Union and the obedience which is due to the- 
laws. 

The president, who exercises a limited power, may err 
without causing great mischief in the state. Congress may 
decide amiss without destroying the Union, because the elec¬ 
toral body in which congress originates may cause it to're¬ 
tract its decision by changing its, members. But ^ if the 
supreme court is ever composed of imprudent men or bad 
citizens, the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil 
war. 

The real cause of this danger, however, does not lie 'in the 
constitution of the tribunal, but in the very nature of federal 
governments. We have observed that in confederate peoples 
it is especially necessary to consolidate the judicial authority, 
because in no other nations do those independent persons 
who are able to cope with the social body, exist, in greater 
power or in a better condition to resist the physical strength 
of the government. But the more a power requires to be 
strengthened, the more extensive and independent it must be 
madeand the dangers which its abuse may create are 
heightened by its independence and its strength. The source 
of the evil is not, therefore, in the constitution of the power, 
but in the constitution of those states which renders its ex¬ 
istence necessary.^ . . 



THE FEDERAL -COI^STlTUTIOiSf. 


151 


IN WHAr RESFKCTS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS SUPERIOR 
TO THAT. OF THE STATES. - 

in what respects the Constitution of the UniGii can be compared to 
that of the States.—Superiority of the Constitution of the Union 
attributable to the Wisdom of the federal Legislators.—Legislature 
of the Union less dependent on the People than that of the States. 
—Executire Power mere independent in its Sphere.—Judicial 
Power less subjected to the Inclinations of the Majority.—Practiced 
Consequences of these Facts.—The Dangers inherent in a democra¬ 
tic Government eluded by the federal Legislators, and increased by 
the Legislators of the States. 

The federal constitution differs essentially from that of the 
states in the ends which it is intended to accomplLsh ; but in 
the means by which these ends are promoted, a greater 
analogy exists between them. The objects of the govern- 
inents are different, but their forms are the same ; and in 
this special point of view tiiere is some advantage in com¬ 
paring them together. 

I am of opinion tliat the federal constitution is superior to 
all the constitutions of the states, for several reasons. 

The present constitution of the Union was formed at a 
later period than those of the majority of the states, and it 
may have derived some meliomtion from past experience. 
But we shall beded to acknowledge that this is only a secon¬ 
dary cause of its superiority, when we recollect that eleven 
new states have been added to the American confederation 
since the promulgation of the federal constitution, and that 
these new republics have always rather exaggerated than 
avoided the defects which existed in the former constitutions. 

The chief cause of the superiority of the federal constitu¬ 
tion lay in the character of the legislators who composed it. 
At the time when it was formed the dangers of the confedera¬ 
tion were imminent, and its ruin seemed inevitable. In this 
extremity the people chose the men who most deserved the 
esteem, rather than those who had gained the affections of 
the country. I have already observed, that distinguished as 
almost all the legislators of the Union were for their in¬ 
telligence, they were still more so for their patriotism. They 
had all been nurtured at a time when the spirit of liberty 
was braced by a continual struggle against a powerful and 
predominant authority. When the contest was terminated, 
while the excited passions of the populace persisted in war¬ 
ring with dangers which had ceased to threaten them, these 
men stopped short m their career; they cast a calmer and 




152 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITHTIO'N, 


more penetrating look upon the country which was now their 
own; they perceived that the war of independence was defi¬ 
nitely ended, and that the only dangers which America had 
to fear were those which might result from the abuse of the 
freedom she had won. They had the courage to say >vhat 
they believed to be true/because they were animated by a 
warm and sincere love of liberty; and they ventured to pro¬ 
pose restrictions, because .they were resolutely opposed to de¬ 
struction.* 

The greater number of the constitutions of the states assign 
one year for the duration of the house of representatives, and 
two yeai's for that of the senate ; so that members of the 
legislative body are constantly and narrowly tied down by tlie 
slightest desires of their constituents. The legislators of the 
Union were of opinion that this excessive dependence of the 
legislature tended to alter the nature of the main conse¬ 
quences of the representative system, since it vested the 
source not only of authority, but of gov^emment, in the peo- 

* At this time Alexander Hamilton, who was one of the principal 
founders of the constitution, ventured to express the following senti¬ 
ments in the Federalist, No. 71: There are some who w ould be 
inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the executive to a prevailing 
current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best re¬ 
commendation. But such men entertain very crude notions, as well 
of the purpose for which government was instituted, as of the true 
means % which the public happiness may be promoted. The repub'- 
lican principle demands that the deliberative sense of the community 
should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the manage¬ 
ments of their affairs; but it does not require an miqualific'd complai¬ 
sance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse 
which the people may receive from the arts of men who flatter their 
prejudices to betray their interests. It is a just observation that the 
people commonly intend the public good. Tliis often applies to their 
very errors. But their good sense w-ouM despise the adulator who 
should pretend that they would always reason right about the means 
of promoting it. They know from experience that they sometimes 
err; and the wonder is that they so seldom err as they do, beset, as 
they continually are, by the wiles of parasites and sycophants ; by the 
snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate ; by the artifices 
of men who possess their confidence more than they deserve it; and 
of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it When occa¬ 
sions present themselves in which the interests of the people are at 
variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of persons whom they 
have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand 
the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for 
more cool and sedate reflection. Instances might he cited in which a 
conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences 
of their owm mistakes, and has procured lasting monuments of their 
gratitude to the men who had courage and magnanimity enough to> 
serve at the peril of their displeasure.” 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


153 


pie. They increased the length of the time for which the 
representatives were returned, in order to give them freer 
scope for the exercise of their own judgment. 

The federal constitution, as well as the constitutions of the 
different states, divided the legislative body into two branches. 
But in the states these two branches were composed of the 
same elements and elected in the same manner. The con¬ 
sequence was that the passions and inclinations of the popu¬ 
lace were as rapidly and as energetically represented in one 
chamber as in the other, and that laws were made with all 
the characteristics of violence and precipitation. By the 
federal constitution the two houses originate in like manner 
in the choice of the people; but the conditions of eligibility 
and the mode of election were changed, to the end that if, as 
is the case in certain nations, one branch of the legislature 
represents the same interests as the other, it may at least re¬ 
present a superior degree of intelligence and discretion. A 
mature age was made one of the conditions of the senatorial 
dignity, and the upper house was chosen by an elected as¬ 
sembly of a limited number of members. 

To concentrate the whole social force in the hands of the 
legislative body is the natural tendency of democracies ; for 
as this is the power which emanates the most directly from 
the people, it is made to participate most fully in the prepon¬ 
derating authority of the multitude, and it is naturally led to 
monopolise every species of influence. This concentration 
is at once prejudicial to a well-conducted administration, and 
favorable to the despotism of the majority. The legislators 
of the states frequently yielded to these democratic propen¬ 
sities, which were invariably and courageously resisted by 
the founders of the Union. 

In the states the executive power is vested in the hands of 
a magistrate, who is apparently placed upon a level with the 
legislature, but who is in reality nothing more than the blind 
agent and the passive instrument of its decisions. He can 
derive no influence from the duration of his functions, which 
terminate with the revolving year, or from the exercise of 
prerogatives which can scarcely be said to exist. The legis¬ 
lature can condemn him to inaction by intrusting the execu¬ 
tion of the laws to special committees of its own members, 
and can annul his temporary dignity by depriving him of his 
salary. The federal constitution vests all the privileges and 
all the responsibility of the executive power in a single indi¬ 
vidual. The duration of the presidency is fixed at four 
years ; the salary of the individual who fills that office can- 


154 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


not be altered during the term of his functions ; he is pFO* 
tected by a body of official dependents, and armed with a 
suspensive veto. In short, every effort was made to confer 
a strong and independent position upon the executive author¬ 
ity, within the limits which had been prescribed to it. ' 

In the constitution of all the states the judicial power is 
that which remains the most independent of the legislative 
authority : nevertheless, in all the states the legislature has 
reserved to itself the right of regulating the emoluments of 
the judges, a practice which necessarily subjects these ma¬ 
gistrates to its immediate influence. In some states the 
judges are only temporarily appointed, which deprives them 
of a great portion of their power and their freedom. In 
others the legislative and judicial powers are entirely con¬ 
founded : thus the senate of New York, for instance, consti¬ 
tutes in certain cases the superior court of the state. The 
federal constitution, on the other hand, carefully separates 
the judicial authority from all external influences: and it 
provides for the independence of the judges, by declaring 
that their salary shall not be altered, and that their functions 
shall be inalienable. 

[It is not universally correct, as supposed by the author, that the 
state legislatures can deprive their governor of his salary at pleasure. 
In the constitution of New York it is provided, that the governor 
“ shall receive for his services a compensation which shall neither be 
increased nor diminished during the term for which he shall have been 
elected and similar provisions are believed to exist in other states. 

Nor is the remark strictly correct, that the federal constitution 
“ provides for the independence of the judges, by declaring that their 
salary shall not be altered.’’' The provision of the constitution is, that 
they shall, “ at stated times, receive for their services a compensation 
which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”— 
American Editor.'] 

The practical consequences of these different systems may 
easily be perceived. An attentive observer will soon remark 
tliat the business of the Union is incomparably better con¬ 
ducted than that of any individual state. The conduct of 
the federal government is more fair and more temperate than 
that of the states; its designs are more fraught with wisdom, 
its projects are more durable and more skilfully combined, 
its measures are put into execution with more vigor and con¬ 
sistency. 

I recapitulate the substance of this chapter in a few 
words:— 

The existence of democracies is threatened by two dangers, 



'TIIK FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


165 


V12. : the complete subjection oF the legislative body to the 
caprices of the electoral body ; and the concentration of all 
the powers of the government in the legislative authority. 

The grov/th of these evils has been encouraged by the 
policy of the legislators of the states; but it has been resisted 
by the legislators of the Union by every means which lay 
within their control. 


I 

CHARACTERISTICS WHICH DISTINGUISH THE FEDERAL CONSTITU- 
TION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM ALL OTHER 
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS. 

/- 

American Union appears to resemble all other Confederations.—Never* 
theless its Effects are different.'—Reason of this—Distinctions be* 
tween the Union and all other Confederations.—The American Gov* 
■ernment not a Federal, but an imperfect National Governmonh 

The United Sfetes of America do not afford either the first or 
the only instance of confederate states, several of which have 
existed in modem Europe, without adverting to those of anti* 
quity. Switzerland, the Germanic empire, and the republic 
of the United Provinces, either have been or still are confede¬ 
rations. In studying the .constitutions of these different coun¬ 
tries, the politician is surprised to observe that the powers 
with which they invested the federal government are nearly 
identical with the privileges awarded by the American con¬ 
stitution to the'-government of the United States. They con¬ 
fer upon the central power the same rights of making peace 
and war, of raising money and troops, and of providing for 
the general exigencies and the common interests of the nation. 
Nevertheless the federal government of these different people 
has always been as remarkable for its weakness and ineffi¬ 
ciency as that of the Union is for its vigorous and enterprising 
spirit. Again, the first American confederation perished 
tlirough the excessive weakness of its government; and this 
Weak government was, notwithstanding, in possession of rights 
even more exten.sive than those of the federal government of 
the present day. But the more recent constitution of the 
United States contains certain principles which exercise a 
most impoi’tant influence, although they do not at once strike 
the observer. 

This constilution, which may at first sight be confounded 
with the federal consjitutions which preceded it, rests upon a 
novel theory, which may be considered as a great invention 






156 


THE FEDERAL CONSTlTTJTfOJs'v 


m modern politieal science^ In all the confederations whfc/i 
had been formed before the American constitution of 1789^ 
the allied states agreed to obey the injunctions of a federal 
government: but they reserved to themselves the right of or¬ 
daining and enforcing the execution of the laws of the 
Union, The American states which combined in 1789 
agreed that the federal government should not only dictate 
the laws, but it should execute its own enactments. In botlr 
cases the right is the same, but the exercise of the right is- 
different } and this alteration produced the most momentous' 
consequences, ^ 

In all the confederations which have been formed before 
the American Union, the federal government demanded it^ 
supplies at the hands of the separate governments ; and if the 
measure it prescribed was onerous to any one of those bodies^ 
means were found to evade its claims: if the state was power¬ 
ful, it had recourse to arms; if it was weak, it connived at 
the resistance which the law of the Union, its sovereign, met 
with, and resorted to inaction under the plea of inability. 
Under these circumstances one of two alternatives has inva¬ 
riably occurred : either the most preponderant of the allied 
peoples has assumed the privileges of the federal authority,- 
and ruled all the other states in its name,’^ or the federal gov¬ 
ernment has been abandoned by its natural supporters, anar¬ 
chy has arisen between the confederates, and the Union has- 
lost all power of actfen.'f' 

In America the subjects of the Union are not states, bug 
private citizens: the national government levies a tax, not 
upon the state of Massachusetts, but upon each inhabitant of 
Massachusetts, All former confederate governments presided 
over communities, but that of the Union rules individuals ; its 
force is not borrowed, but self-derived; and it is served by its- 
own civil and military olEcers, by its own army, and its. ownf 
courts of justice. It cannot be doubted that the spirit of the 
nation, the passions of the multitude, and the provincial pre¬ 
judices of each state, tend singularly to diminish the author¬ 
ity of a federal authority thus coiistituted, and to facilitate 
the means of resistance to its mandates ; but the comparative 

* This was the case in Greece, when Philip undertook to execute* 
the decree of the Amphictyons-; in the Low Countries, where tlie 
province of Holland always ^ave the law; and' i'n our time in the Ger¬ 
manic confederation, in which Austria and Prussia assume a great de¬ 
gree of influence over the whole country, in the name of the Diet. 

t Such has always been the situation of the Swiss confederation, 
which would have perished ag.es' ago but for the mutual jealousies of 
its neighbors. 


Tai; PEDERAL CONSTlTUTiOJl. 


157 


Weakness of a restricted sovereignty is an evil inherent in 
the federal system. In America, each state has fewer oppor¬ 
tunities of resistance, and fewer temptations to non-compli¬ 
ance ; nor can such a design be put in execution (if indeed 
it be entertained), without an open violation of the laws of 
the Union, a direct interruption of the ordinary course of 
justice, and a bold declaration of revolt; in a word, without 
a decisive step, whielf men hesitate to adopt. 

In all former confederations, the privileges of the Union 
furnished more elements of discord than of power, since they 
multiplied the claims of the nation without augmenting the 
means of enforcing them: and in accordance with this fact it 
may be remarked, that the real weakness of federal govern¬ 
ments has almost always been in the exact ratio of their nomi¬ 
nal power. Such is not the case with the American Union, 
in which, as in ordinary governments, the federal government 
has the means of enforcing all it is empowered to demand. 

The human understanding more easily invents new things 
than new words, and we are thence constrained to employ a 
multitude of improper and inadequate expressions. When 
several nations form a permanent league, and establish a 
supreme authority, which, although it has not the same influ¬ 
ence over the members of the community as a national gov¬ 
ernment, acts upon each of the confederate states in a body, 
this government, which is so essentially different from all 
others, is denominated a federal one. Another form of so¬ 
ciety is afterward discovered, in which several peoples are 
fuseef into one and the same nation ’with regard to certain 
common interests, although they remain distinct, or at least 
only confederate, with regard to all their other concerns. In 
this case the central power acts directiy upon those whom it 
governs, whom it rules, and whom it judges, in the same 
manner as, but in a more limited circle than, a national gov- 
Verament. Here the term of federal government is clearly 
no longer applicable to a state of things which must be styled 
an incomplete national government; a form of government 
has been found out which is neither exactly national nor fede¬ 
ral ; but no farther progress has been made, and the new word 
which will one day designate this novel invention does not 
yet exist. 

The absence of this new species of confederation has been 
the cause which has brought all unions to civil war, to sub¬ 
jection, or to a stagnant apathy ; and the peoples vvhich form¬ 
ed these leagues have been either too dull to discern, or too 

15 





158 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


pusillanimous to apply this great remedy. The American 
confederation perished by the same defects. 

But the confederate states of America had been ^ long 
accustomed to form a portion of one empire before they had 
won their independence : they had not contracted the habit 
of governing themselves, and their national prejudices had 
not taken deep root in their minds. Superior to the rest of 
the world in political knowledge, and sharing that knowledge 
equally among themselves, they were little agitated by the 
passions which generally oppose the extension of federal 
authority in a nation, and those passions were checked by the 
wisdom of the chief citizens. 

The Americans applied the remedy with prudent firmness 
as soon as they were conscious of the evil ; they amended 
their laws, and they saved their country. 


ADVANTAGES OP THE FEDERAL SYSTEM IN GENERAL, AND ITS 
SPECIAL UTILITY IN AMERICA. , ' . 

Happiness and Freedom of small Nations.—Power of Great Nations,— 
Great Empires favorable to the Growth of Civilisation.—Strength 
often the first Element of national Prosperity.—Aim of the federal 
System to unite the twofold Advantages resulting from a small and 
from a large Territory.—Advantages derived by the United States 
from this System.—The Law adapts itself to the Exigencies of the 
Population; Population does not conform to the Exigencies of the 
Law.—Activity, Melioration, Love, and Enjoyment of Freedom in 
the American Communities.—Public Spirit of the Union the abstract 
of provincial Patriotism.—Principles and Things circulate freely 
over the Territory of the United States.—The Union is happy and 
free as a little Nation,^and respected as a great Empire. 

In small nations the scrutiny of society penetrates into every 
part, and the spirit of improvement enters into tlie most trifling 
details; as the ambition of the people is necessarily chccke(l 
by its weakness, all the efforts and re?sources of tlic citizens 
are turned to the internal benefit of the community, and arc 
not likely to evaporate in the fleeting breath of glory. The 
desires of every individual are limited, because extraordinary 
faculties are rarely to be met with. The gifts of an equal 
fortune render the various conditions of life uniform ; and 
the manners of the inhabitants are orderly and simple. 
Thus, if we estimate the gradations of popular morality and 
enlightenment, we shall generally find that in small natiojis 
there are more persons in easy circumstances, a more nu-'^ 



THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


159 


mercus population, and a more tranquil state of society than 
in great empires. ~ ^ . , /^ 

When tyranny is established in the bosom of a small 
nation, it is more galling than elsewhere, because, as it acts 
within a narrow circle, every point of that circle is subject 
to its direct influence. It supplies the place of those great 
designs which it cannot entertain, by a violent or an exaspe¬ 
rating interference in a multitude of minute, details ; and it 
leaves the political world to which it properly belongs, to. 
meddle with the arrangements of domestic life. Tastes as 
well as actions are to be regulated at its pleasure; and the 
families of the citizens as well as the affairs of the state are 
to be governed by its decisions. This invasion of<. rights 
occurs, however, but seldom, and freedom is in truth the 
natural state of small communities. The temptations which 
the government offers to ambition are too weak, and the re¬ 
sources of private individuals are too slender, for the sove¬ 
reign power easily to fall within the grasp of a single citizen : 
and should such an event have occurred, the subjects of the 
state can without difficulty overthrow the tyrant and his 
oppression by a simultaneous effort. 

Small nations have therefore ever been the cradles of poli¬ 
tical liberty: and the fact that many of them have lost their 
immunities by extending their dominion, shows that the free¬ 
dom they enjoyed was more a consequence of their inferior 
size than of the character of the people. 

The history of the world affords no instance of' a great 
nation retaining the form of a republican government for a 
long series of years,* and this had led to the conclusion that 
such a state of things is impracticable. For my own part, 

I cannot but censure the imprudence of attempting to limit 
the possible, and to judge the future, on the part of a being 
who is hourly deceived ^by the most palpable realities of life, 
and who is constantly taken by surprise in the circumstances 
with which he is most familiar. But it may be advanced 
with confidence that the existence of a great republic will, 
always be exposed to far greater perils than that of a small / 
one. 

All the passions which are most fatal to republican institu- ^ 
tions spread with an increasing territory, while the virtues 
which maintain their dignity do not augment in the same 
proportion. The ambition of the citizens increases with the ' 

* I do not speak of a confederation of small republics, but of a great 
consolidated republic. - 



160 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


power of the state ; the strength of parties, with the import¬ 
ance of the ends they have in view ; but that devotion ^to the 
common weal, which is the surest check on destructive pas¬ 
sions, is not stronger in a large than in a small republic. It 
might, indeed, be proved without difficulty that it is less pow¬ 
erful and less sincere. The arrogance of wealth and the 
dejection of wretchedness, capital cities of unwonted extent, 
a lax morality, a vulgar egotism, and a great confusion of 
.interests, are the dangers which almost invariably arise from 
the magnitude of states. But several of these evils are 
scarcely prejudicial to a monarchy, and some of them con¬ 
tribute to maintain its existence. In monarchical states the 
strength of the government is its own; it may use, but it 
does not depend on, the community 5 and the authority of the 
prince is proportioned to the prosperity of the nation ; but 
the only security which a republican government possesses 
against these evils lies in the support of the majority. This 
support is not, however, proportionably greater in a large 
republic than it is in a small one ; and thus while the means 
of attack perpetually increase both in number and in influ¬ 
ence, the power of resistance remains the same ; or it ma}r 
rather be said to diminish, since the propensities and interests 
of the people are diversified by the increase of the popula¬ 
tion, and the difficulty of forming a compact majority is con¬ 
stantly augmented. It has been observed, moreover, that the 
intensity of human passions is heightened, not only by the 
importance of the end which they propose to attain, but by 
the multitude of individuals who are animated by them at 
the same time. Every one has had occasion to remark that 
his emotions in the midst of a sympathizing crowd are far 
greater than those which he would have felt in solitude. In 
great republics the impetus of political passion is irresistible, 
not only because it aims at gigantic purposes, but because it 
is felt and shared by millions of men at the same time. 

It may therefore be asserted as a general proposition, that 
nothing is inore opposed to the well-being and the freedom of 
man than vast empires. Nevertheless it is important to ac¬ 
knowledge the peculiar advantages of great states. For the 
very reason which renders the desire of power more intense 
in these communities than among ordinary men, the love of 
glory is also more prominent in the hearts of a class of citizens, 
who regard the applause of a great people as a reward worthy 
of their exertions, and an elevating encouragement to man. 
If we would learn why it is that great nations contribute 
more powerfully to the spread of human improvement than 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


101 


small states, we shall discover an adequate cause in the rapid 
and energetic circulation of ideas, and in those great cities 
which are the intellectual centres where all the rays of 
human genius are reflected and combined. To this it may 
be'added that most important discoveries demand a display 
of national power which the government of a small state is 
unable to make; in great nations the government entertains 
a greater number of general notions, and is more completely 
disengaged from the routine of precedent and the egotism of 
local prejudice ; its designs are conceived with more talent, 
and executed with more boldness. 

In time of peace the well-being of small nations is undoubt¬ 
edly more general and more complete ; but they are apt to 
- suffer more acutely from the calamities of war than those 
great empires whose distant frontiers may for ages avert the 
presence of the danger from the mass of the people, which is 
more frequently afflicted than ruined by the evil. 

But in this matter, as in many others, the argument derived 
from the necessity of the case predominates over all others. 
If none but small nations existed, I do not doubt that mankind 
would be more happy and more free ; but the existence of 
great nations is unavoidable. ' 

This consideration introduces the element of physical 
strength as a condition of national prosperity. 

It profits a people but little to be affluent and free, if it is 
perpetually exposed to be pillaged or subjugated ; the number 
of its manufactures and the extent of its commerce are of small 
advantage, if another nation has the empire of the seas and 
gives the law in all the markets of the globe. Small nations 
are often impoverished, not because they are small, but 
because they are weak ; and great empires prosper less 
because they are great than because they are strong. Physi¬ 
cal strength is''therefore one of the first conditions of the 
happiness and even of the existence of nations. Hence it 
occurs, that unless very peculiar circumstances intervene, 
small nations are always united to large empires in the end, 
either by force or by their own consent; yet I am unacquainted 
with a more deplorable spectacle than that of a people unable 
either to defend or to maintain its independence. 

The federal system was created with the intention of com¬ 
bining the different advantages which result from the greater 
and the lesser extent of nations ; and a single glance over 
the United States of America suffices to discover the advan¬ 
tages which they have derived from its adoption. 

In great centralized nations the legislator is obliged to im- 

15* 


162 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


part a character of uniformity to the laws, which does not 
always suit the diversity of customs and of districts ; as he 
takes no cognizance of special cases, he can only proceed 
upon general principles; and the population is obliged to 
conform to the exigencies of the legislation, since the legis¬ 
lation cannot adapt itself to the exigencies and customs of 
the population ; which is the cause of endless trouble and 
misery. This disadvantage does not exist in confederations; 
congress regulates the principal measures of the national 
government, and all .the details of the administration are re¬ 
served to the provincial legislatures. It is impossible to 
imagine how much this division of sovereignty contributes to 
the well-being of each of the states which compose the 
Union. In these small communities, which are never agi¬ 
tated by the desire of aggrandizement or the cares of self- 
defence, all public authority and private energy is employed 
in internal melioration. The central government of each 
state, which is in immedfate juxtaposition to the citizens, is 
daily apprised of the wants which arise in society ; and new 
projects are proposed every year, which are discussed either 
at town-meetings or by the legislature of the state, and which 
are transmitted by the press to stimulate the zeal and to ex¬ 
cite the interest of the citizens. This spirit of melioration is 
constantly alive in the American republics, without com¬ 
promising their tranquillity ; the ambition of power yields to 
the less refined and less dartgerous love of comfort. It is 
generally believed in America'that the existence and the 
permanence of the republican form of government in the 
New World depend upon the existence and the permanence 
of the federal system ; and it is not unusual to attribute a 
large share of the misfortunes which have befallen the new 
states of South America to the injudicious erection of great 
republics, instead of a divided and confederate sovereignty. 

It is incontestably true that the love and the habits of re¬ 
publican government in the United States were engendered 
in the townships and in the provincial assemblies. In a small 
state, like thaf of Connecticut for instance, where cutting a 
canal or laying down a road is a momentous political ques¬ 
tion, where the state has no army to pay and no wars to 
carry on, and where much wealth and much honor cannot 
be bestowed upon the chief citizens, no form of government 
can be more natural or more appropriate than that of a re¬ 
public. But it is this same republican spirit, it is these man¬ 
ners and customs of a free people, which are engendered and 
nurtured in the different states, to be afterward applied^to the 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


163 


country at large. The public spirit of the Union is, so to 
speak, nothing more than an abstract of the patriotic zeal of 
the provinces. Every citizen of the United States transfu¬ 
ses liis attachment to his little republic into the common store 
of American patriotism. In defending the Union, he defends 
the increasing prosperity of his own district, the right of 
conducting its affairs, and the hope of causing measures of 
improvement to be adopted which may be favorable to his 
own interests ; and these are motives which are wont to stir 
men more readily than the general interests of the country 
and the glory of the nation. 

On the other hand, if the temper and the manners of the 
inhabitants especially fitted them to promote the welfare of a 
great republic, the federal system smoothed the obstacles 
which they might have encountered. The confederation of 
all the American states presents none of the ordinary disad¬ 
vantages resulting from great agglomerations of men. The 
Union is a great republic in extent, but the paucity of objects 
for which its government provides assimilates it to a small 
state. Its acts are important, but they are rare. As the 
sovereignty of the Union is limited and incomplete, its exer¬ 
cise is not incompatible with liberty ; for it does not excite 
those insatiable desires of fame and power which have proved 
so fatal to great republics. As there is no common centre to 
the country, vast capital cities, colossal wealth, abject pov¬ 
erty, and sudden revolutions are alike unknown and political 
passion, instead of spreading over the land like a torrent of 
desolation, spends its strength against the interests and the 
individual passions of every state. 

Nevertheless, all commodities and ideas circulate through¬ 
out the Union as freely as in a country inhabited by one 
people. Nothing checks the spirit of enterprise. The go¬ 
vernment avails itself of the assistance of all who have tal¬ 
ents or knowledge to serve it. Within the frontiers of the 
Union the profoundest peace prevails, as within the heart of 
some great empire ; abroad, it ranks with the most powerful 
nations of the earth : two thousand miles of coast are open 
to the commerce of the world; and as it possesses the keys 
of the globe, its flag is respected in the most remote seas. 
The Union is as happy and as free as a small people, and as 
glorious and as strong as a great nation. 



164 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


WHY THE FEDERAL SYSTEM IS NOT ADAPTED TO ALL PEOPLES, 
AND HOW THE ANGLO-AMERICANS WERE ENABLED TO 
ADOPT IT. ' )■ 

Every federal System contains defects which baffle the efforts of the 
Legislator.—The federal System is complex.—It demands a daily 
Exercise of Discretion on the Part of the Citizens.—Practical know¬ 
ledge of the Government common among the Americans.—Relative 
weakness of the Government of the Union another defect inherent 
in the federal System.—The Americans have diminished without 
remedying it.—The Sovereignty of the separate States apparently 
weaker, but really stronger, than that of the Union.—Why.—Natural 
causes of Union must exist between confederate Peoples beside the 
Laws.—What these Causes are among the Anglo-Americans.— 
Maine and Georgia, separated by a Distance of a thousand Miles, 
more naturally united than Normandy and Britany.—War, the main 
Peril of Confederations.—This proved even by the Example of the 
United States.—The Union has no great Wars to fear.—Why.— 
Dangers to which Europeans would be exposed if they adopted the 
federal System of the Americans. 

When a legislator succeeds, after persevering efforts, in ex¬ 
ercising an indirect influence upon the destiny of nations, his 
genius is lauded by mankind, while in point of fact, the 
geographical position of the country which he is unable to 
change, a social condition which arose without his co-opera¬ 
tion, manners and opinions which he cannot trace to their 
source, and an origin with which he is unacquainted, exercise 
so irresistible an influence over the courses of society, that he 
is himself feod’ne away by the current, after an ineffectual re¬ 
sistance. Like the navigator, he may direct the vessel which 
bears him along, but he Dan neither change its structure, nor 
raise the winds, nor lull the waters which swell beneath him. 

I have shown the advantages which the Americans derive 
from their federal system ; it remains for me to point out the 
circumstances which render that system practicable, as its 
benefits are not to be enjoyed by all nations. The incidental 
defects of the federal system which originate in the laws may 
be corrected by the skill of the legislator, but there are far- 
ther evils inherent in the system which cannot be counteracted 
by the peoples which adopt it. These nations must therefore 
find the strength necessary to support the natural imperfec¬ 
tions of the government. 

The most prominent evil of all federal systems is the very 
complex nature of the means they employ. Two sovereign¬ 
ties are necessarily in the presence of each other. The 
legislator may simplify and equalize the action of these two 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


165 


sovereignties, by limiting each of them to a sphere of authority 
accurately defined ; but he cannot combine them into one, or 
prevent them from running into collision at certain points. 
The federal system therefore rests upon a tlieory which is 
necessarily complicated, and which demands the daily exer¬ 
cise of a considerable share of discretion on the part of those 
it governs. 

A proposition must be plain to be adopted by the under¬ 
standing of a people. A false notion, which is clear and pre¬ 
cise, will always meet with a greater number of adherents in 
the world than a true principle which is obscure or involved. 
Hence it arises that parties, which are like small communi¬ 
ties in the heart of the nation, invariably adopt some princi¬ 
ple or some name as a symbol, which very inadequately 
represents the end they have in view, and the means which 
are at their disposal, but without which they could neither 
act nor subsist. The governments which are founded upon a 
single principle or a single feeling which is easily defined, 
are perhaps not the best, but they are unquestionably the 
strongest and the most durable in the world. . - 

In examining the constitution of the United States, which is 
the most perfect federal constitution that ever existed, one is 
startled, on the other hand, at the variety of information and 
the excellence of discretion which it presupposes in the people 
whom it is meant to govern. The government of the Union 
depends entirely upon legal fictions; the Union is an ideal 
notion which only exists in the mind, and whose limits and 
extent can only be discerned by the understanding. 

When once the general theory is comprehended, nume¬ 
rous difliculties remain to be solved in its application ; for 
the sovereignty of the Union is so involved in thaU of the 
states, that it is impossible to distinguish its boundaries at the 
first glance. The whole structure of the government is arti¬ 
ficial and conventional ; and it would be ill-adapted to a peo¬ 
ple which has not long been accustomed to conduct its own 
affairs, or to one in which the science of politics has not de¬ 
scended to the humblest classes of society. I have never been 
more struck by the good sense and the practical judgment of 
the Americans than in the ingenious devices by which they 
elude the numberless difficulties resulting from their federal 
constitution. I scarcely ever met with a plain American 
citizen who could not distinguish, with surprising facility, the 
obligations created by the laws of congress from those creat¬ 
ed by the laws of his own state ; and who, after haying 
discriminated between the matters which come under the cog- 




166 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


nizance of the Union, and those which the local legislature is 
competent to regulate, could not point out the exact limit of 
the several jurisdictions of the federal courts and the tribu¬ 
nals of the state. 

The constitution of the United States is like those exqui¬ 
site productions of human industry which ensure wealth and 
renown to their inventors, but which are profitless in any 
other hands. This truth is exemplified by the condition of 
Mexico at the present time. The Mexicans were desirous of 
establishing a federal system, and they took the federal con¬ 
stitution of their neighbors the Anglo-Americans as their' 
model, and copied it with considerable accuracy.* But al- 
though they had borrowed the letter of the law, they were 
unable to create or to introduce the spirit and the sense which 
gave it life. They were involved in ceaseless embarrass¬ 
ments between the mechanism of their double government; 
the sovereignty of the states and that of- the Union perpetu¬ 
ally exceeded their respective privileges, and entered into 
collision ; and to the present day Mexico is alternately the 
victim of anarchy and the slave of military despotism. 

-- The second and the most fatal of all the defects I have 
alluded to, and that which I believe to be inherent in the 
federal system, is the relative weakness of the government of 
the Union. Tlie principle upon which all confederations 
rest is that of a divided sovereignty. The legislator may 
render this partition less perceptible, he may even conceal it 
for a time from the public eye, but he cannot prevent it from 
existing ; and a divided sovereignty must always be' less 
powerful than an entire supremacy. The reader has seen 
in the remarks I have made on the constitution of the Uni¬ 
ted States, that the Americans have displayed singular inge¬ 
nuity in combining the restriction of the power of the Union 
within the narrow limits of the federal government, with the 
semblance, and to a certain extent with the force of a na¬ 
tional government. By this means the legislators of the 
Union have succeeded in diminishing, though not in counter¬ 
acting, the natural danger of confederations. 

It has been remarked that the American government does 
not apply itself to the"'states, but that it immediately trans¬ 
mits its injunctions to the citizens, and compels them as iso¬ 
lated individuals to comply with its demands. But if the 
federal law were to clash with the interests and prejudices 
of a state, it might be feared that all the citizens of that 

* See the Mexican constitution of 1824 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


167 


state would conceive themselves to be interested in the 
cause of a single individual who should refuse to obey. If 
all the citizens of the state were aggrieved at the same time 
and in the same manner by the authority of the Union, tlie 
federal government would vainly attempt to subdue them 
individually ; they would instinctively unite in the common 
defence, and they would derive a ready-prepared organiza¬ 
tion from the share of sovereignty which the institution of 
their state allows them to enjoy.. Fiction would give way to 
reality, and an organized portion of the territory might then 
contest the central authority. 

The same observation holds good with regard to the federal 
jurisdiction. If the courts of the Union violated an impor¬ 
tant law of a state in a private case, the real, if not the appa¬ 
rent contest would arise between the aggrieved state, repre¬ 
sented by a citizen, and the Union, represented by its courts 
of justice.* 

* For instance, the Union possesses by the constitution the right of 
selling unoccupied lands for its own profit. Supposing that the state 
of Ohio should claim the same right in behalf of certain territories ly¬ 
ing within its boundaries, upon the plea that the constitution refers to 
those lands alone which do not belong to the jurisdiction of any par¬ 
ticular state, and consequently should choose to dispose of them itself, 
the litigation would be carried on in the name of the purchasers from 
the state of Ohio, and the purchasers from the Union, and not in the 
names of Ohio and thd Union. But what wmuld become of this legal 
fiction if the federal purchaser was confirmed in his right by the courts 
of the Union, while the other competitor was ordered to retain posses¬ 
sion by the tribunals of the state of Ohio ? 

[The difficulty supposed by the author in this note is imaginary. 
The question of title to the lands in the case put, must depend upon 
the constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States; and a deci¬ 
sion in the state court adverse to the claim or title set up under those 
laws, must, by the very words of the constitution and of the judiciary 
act, be subject to review by the supreme court of the United States, 
whose decision is final. 

The remarks in the text of this page upon the relative weakness of 
the government of the Union, are equally applicable to any form of 
republican or democratic government, and are not peculiar to a fede¬ 
ral system. Under the circumstances supposed by the author, of all 
the citizens of a state, or a large majority of them, aggrieved at the 
same time and in the same manner, by the operation of any law, 
the same difficulty would arise in executing the laws of the state as 
those of the Union. - Indeed,'^uch instances of the total inefficacy 
of state laws' are not wanting. The fact is, that all republics de¬ 
pend on the willingness of the people to execute the laws. If they 
will net enforce them, there is, so far, an, end to the government, 
for it possesses no power adequate to the control of the physical 
power of the people. 

Not only in theory, but in fact, a republican government must be 



168 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


He would have but a partial knowledge of the world who 
should imagine that it is possible, by the aid of legal fictions, 
to prevent men from finding out and employing those means 
(d gratifying their passions which have been left open to 
them; and it may be doubted whether the American legis¬ 
lators, when they rendered a collision between the two sove¬ 
reignties less probable, destroyed the causes of such a mis¬ 
fortune. But it may even be affirmed that they were unable 
to ensure the preponderance of the federal element in a case 
of this kind. The Union is possessed of money and of troops, 
but the affections and the prejudices of the people are in the 
bosom of the states. The sovereignty of the Union is an ab¬ 
stract being, which is^connected with but few external objects ; 
the sovereignty of the states is hourly perceptible, easily un¬ 
derstood, constantly active ; and if the former is of recent crea¬ 
tion, the latter is coeval with the people itself. The sovereignty 
of the Union is factitious,i that of the states is natural, and 
derives its existence from its own simple influence, like the au¬ 
thority of a parent. The supreme power of the nation affects 
only a few of the chief interests of society ; it represents an 
immense but remote country, and claims a feeling of patriot¬ 
ism which is vague and ill-defined ; but the authority of the 
states controls ^very individual citizen at every hour and in 
all circumstances; it protects his property, his freedom, and 
his life; and when we recollect the traditions, the customs, 
the prejudices of local and familiar^attachment with which it 
is connected, we cannot doubt the superiority of a power 
which is interwoven with every circumstance that renders 
the love of one’s native country instinctive to the human 
heart. 

Since legislators are unable to obviate such dangerous col¬ 
lisions as occur between the two sovereignties which co-exist 
in the federal system, their -first object must be, not only to 

administered by the people themselves. They, and they alone, must 
execute the laws. And hence, the first principles in such govern¬ 
ments, that on which all others depend, and without which no other 
can exist, is and must be, obedience to the existing laws at all 
times and under all circumstances. It is the vital condition of the 
social compact. He who claims a dispensing power for himself, by 
which he suspends the operation of the law in his own case, is 
worse than a usurper, for he not only tramples under foqt the con¬ 
stitution of his country, but violates the reciprocal pledi<e which he 
has given to his fellow-citizens, and has received from them, that he 
will abide by the laws constitutionally enacted; upon the strength of 
which pledge, his own personal rights and acquisitions are protected 
by the rest of the community.—./^/nerica?^ Edito7\'\ 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


169 


dissuade the confedei’ate states from warfare, but to encourage 
such institutions as may promote the maintenance of peace. 
Hence it results that the federal compact cannot be lasting 
unless there exists in the communities which are leagued 
together, a certain number of inducements to union which 
render their common dependance agreeable, and the task of 
the government light; and that system cannot succeed with¬ 
out the presence of favorable circumstances added to the in¬ 
fluence of good laws. All the people which have ever formed 
a confederation have been held together by a certain number 
of common interests, which served as the intellectual ties of 
association. 

But the sentiments and the principles of man must be taken 
into consideration as well as his immediate interest. A cer¬ 
tain uniformity of civilisation is not less necessary to the 
durability of a confederation, than a uniformity of interests in 
the states which compose it. In Switzerland the difference 
which exists between the canton of Uri and the canton of 
Vaud is equal to that between the fifteenth and nineteenth 
centuries ; and, properly speaking, Switzerland has never 
possessed a federal government. The Union between these 
two cantons only subsists upon the map ; and their discre¬ 
pancies would soon be perceived if an attempt were made by 
a central authority to prescribe the same laws to the whole 
territory. 

One of the circumstances which most powerfully contri¬ 
bute to support the federal government in America, is that the 
states have not only similar interests, a common origin, and a 
common tongue, but that they are also arrived at the same stage 
of civilisation ; which almost always renders a union feasible. 
I do not know of any European nation, how small soever it 
may be, which does not present less uniformity in its differ¬ 
ent provinces than the American people, which occupies a 
territory as extensive as one half of Europe. The distance 
from the state of Maine to that of Georgia is reckoned at 
about one thousand miles; but the difference between the 
civilisation of Maine and that of Georgia js slighter than the 
difference between the habits of Normandy and those of 
Britany. Maine and Georgia, which are placed at the oppo¬ 
site extremities of a great empire, are consequently in the 
natural possession of more real inducements to form a confede¬ 
ration than Normandy and Britany, which are only separated 
by a bridge. 

The geographical position of the country contributed to 
increase the facilities which the American legislators derived 
16 



170 


THE FEDERAL COHSTITHTION. 


from the manners and customs of the inhabitants' and it is 
to this circumstance that the adoption and the maintenance 
of the federal system are mainly attributable. 

The most important occurrence which can mark the an¬ 
nals of a people is the breaking out of a war. In war a 
people struggle with the energy of a single man against for¬ 
eign nations, in the defence of its very existence. The skill 
of a government, the good sense of the community, and the 
natural fondness which men entertain for their country, may 
suffice to maintain peace in the interior of a district, and to 
favor its internal prosperity ; but a nation can only carry on 
a great war at the cost of more numerous and more painful 
sacrifices ; and to suppose that a great number of men will 
.of their own accord comply with the exigencies of the state, 
is to betray an ignorance of mankind. All the peoples which 
have been obliged to sustain a long and serious warfare have 
consequently been led to augment the power of their govern¬ 
ment. Those which have not succeeded in this attempt have 
been subjugated. A long war almost always places nations 
in the wretched alternative of being abandoned to ruin by 
defeat, or to despotism by success. War therefore renders 
the symptoms of the weakness of a government most palpa¬ 
ble and most alarming; and I have shown that the inherent 
defect of federal governments is that of being weak. 

The federal system is not only deficient in every kind of 
centralized administration, but the central government itself 
is imperfectly organized, which is invariably an influential 
cause of inferiority when the nation is opposed to other coun¬ 
tries which are themselves governed by a single authority. In 
the federal constitution of the United States, by which the cen¬ 
tral government possesses more real force, this evil is still 
extremely sensible. An example will illustrate the case to 
the reader. 

The constitution confers upon congress the right of “ call¬ 
ing forth militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress 
insurrections, and repel invasionsand another article de¬ 
clares that the president of the IJnited States is the com¬ 
mander-in-chief of the militia. In the war of 1812, the 
president ordered the militia of the northern states to march 
to the frontiers; but Connecticut and Massachusetts, whose 
interests were impaired by the war, refused to obey the com¬ 
mand. They argued that the constitution authorizes the 
federal government to call forth the militia in cases of insur¬ 
rection or invasion, but that, in the present instance, there 
was neither invasion nor insurrection. They added, that 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


171 


the same constitution which conferred upon the Union the 
right of calling forth the militia, reserved to the states-that 
of naming the officers ; and that consequently (as they un¬ 
derstood the clause) no officer of the Union had any right to 
command the militia, even during war, except the president 
in person: and in this case they were ordered to join an 
army commanded by another individual. These absurd and 
pernicious doctrines received the sanction not only of the 
governors and legislative bodies, but also of the courts of jus¬ 
tice in both states; and the federal government was con¬ 
strained to raise elsewhere the troops which it required.* 

The only safeguard which the American Union, with all 
the relative perfection of its laws, possesses against the dis¬ 
solution which would be produced by a great war, lies in its’ 
probable exemption from that calamity. Placed in the cen¬ 
tre of an immense continent, which offers a boundless field 
for human industry, the Union is almost as much insulated 
from the world as if its frontiers were girt by the ocean. 
Canada contains only a million of inhabitants, and its popu¬ 
lation is divided into two inimical nations. The rigor of the 
climate limits the extension of its territory, and shuts up its 
ports during the six months of winter.. From Canada to the 
Gulf of Mexico a few savage tribes are to be met with, 
which retire, perishing in their retreat, before six thousand 
soldiers. To the south, the Union has a point of contact with 
the empire of Mexico; and it is thence that serious hostili¬ 
ties may one day be expected to arise. But for a long while 
to come, the uncivilized state of the Mexican community, the 
depravity of its morals, and its extreme poverty, will pre¬ 
vent that country from ranking high among nations. As 
for the powers jf Europe, they are too distant to be for¬ 
midable.f 

The great advantage of the United States does not, then, 
consist in a federal constitution which allows them to carry 

* Kent’s Commentaries, vol. i.,p. 244. I have selected an example 
which relates to a time posterior to the promulgation of the present 
constitution. If I had gone back to the days of the confederation, I 
might have given still more striking instances. The whole nation 
was at that time in a state of enthusiastic excitement; the revolution 
was represented by a man who was the idol of the people ; but at that 
very period congress had, to say the truth, no resources at all at its , 
disposal. Troops and supplies were perpetually wanting. The best 
devised projects failed in the execution, and the Union, which was 
constantly on the verge of destruction, was saved by the weakness of 
its enemies far more than by its own strength. 

f Appendix 0. , * 


172 


THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 


on great wars, but in a geographical position, which renders 
such enterprises improbable. 

No one can be more inclined than I am myself to appreci¬ 
ate the advantages of the federal system, which I hold to be 
one of the combinations most favorable to the prosperity and 
freedom of man. I envy the lot of those nations which have 
been enabled to adopt it; but I cannot believe that any con¬ 
federate peoples could maintain a long or an equal contest 
with a nation of similar strength in which the government 
should be centralised. A people which should divide its sove¬ 
reignty into fractional powers, in the presence of the great 
military monarchies of Europe, would, in my opinion, by that 
very act, abdicate its power, and perhaps its existence and its 
name. But such is the admirable position of the New World, 
that man has no other enemy than himself; and that in order 
to be happy and to be free, it suffices to seek the gifts of pros¬ 
perity and the knowledge of freedom. 


CHAPTER IX. 

I HAVE hitherto examined the institutions of the United 
States; I have passed their legislation in review, and I have 
depicted the present characteristics of political society in that 
country. But a sovereign power exists above these institu¬ 
tions and beyond these characteristic features, which may de¬ 
stroy or modify them at its pleasure ; I mean that of the peo¬ 
ple. It remains to be shown in what manner this power, 
which regulates the laws, acts: its propensities and its passions 
remain to be pointed out, as well as the secret springs which 
retard, accelerate, or direct its irresistible course ; and the 
effects of its unbounded authority, with the destiny which is 
probably reserved for it. 


' WHY THE PEOPLE MAY STRICTLY BE SAID TO GOVERN IN THE 
UNITED STATES. 

In America the people appoints the legislative and the exe¬ 
cutive power, and furnishes the jurors who punish all offences 
against the laws. The American institutions are democratic, 
not only in their principle but in all their consequences; and 




PARTIES IN THE UNITED STATES. 


173 


the people elects its representatives directly, and for the most 
part annually, in order to ensure their dependence. The 
people is therefore the real directing power ] and although 
the form of government is representative, it is evident that the 
opinions,Uhe prejudices, the interests, and even the passions 
of the community are hindered by no durable obstacles from 
exercising a perpetual influence on society. In the United 
States the majority governs in the name of the people, as is 
the case in all the countries in which the people is supreme. 
This majority is principally composed of peaceable citizens, 
who, either by inclination or by interest, are sincerely desirous 
of the welfare of their country. But they are surrounded 
by the incessant agitation of parties, which attempt to gain 
their co-operation and to avail themselves of their support. 


CHAPTER X. 

PARTIES IN THE UNITED STATES. 


Great Division to be made between Parties.—Parties which are to each 
other as rival Nations.—Parties properly so called.—Difference 
between great and small Parties.—Epochs which produce them.— 
Their Characteristics.—America has had great Parties.—They are 
extinct.—Federalists.—Republicans.—Defeat of the Federalists.— 
Difficulty of creating Parties in the United States.—What is done 
with this Intention.—Aristocratic and democratic Character to be 
met with in all Parties.—Struggle of General Jackson against the 
Bank. 

A GREAT division must be made between parties. Some 
countries are so large that the different populations which 
inhabit them have contradictory interests, although they are 
the subjects of the same government; and they may thence 
be in a perpetual state of opposition. In this case the different 
fractions of the people may more properly be considered as 
distinct nations than as mere parties ; and if a civil war 
breaks out, the struggle is carried off by rival peoples rather 
than by factions in the state. 

But when the citizens entertain different opinions upon 
subjects which affect the whole country* alike, such, for 
instance, as the principles upon which the government is to be 
conducted, then distinctions arise which may correctly be 
styled parties. Parties are a necessary evil in free govern- 
16 * 



174 


PARTIES IN THE UNITED STATES. 


ments; but they have not at ail times the same character and 
the same propensities. 

At certain periods a nation may be oppressed by such 
insupportable evils as to conceive the design of effecting a 
total change in its political constitution; at other times the 
mischief lies still deeper, and the existence of society itself is 
endangered. Such are the times of great revolutions and of 
great parties. But between these epochs of misery and of 
confusion there are periods during which human society seems 
to rest, and mankind to make a pause. This pause is, indeed, 
only apparent; for time does not stop’its course for nations 
any more than for men ; they are all advancing toward a 
goal with which they are unacquainted ; and we only imagine 
them to be stationary when their progress escapes our obser¬ 
vation ; as men who are going at a foot pace seem to be 
standing still to those who run. 

But however this may be, there are certain epochs at which 
the changes that take place in the social and political consti¬ 
tution of nations are so slow and so insensible, that men 
imagine their present condition to be a final state; and the 
human mind, believing itself to be firmly based upon certain 
foundations, does not extend its researches beyond the horizon 
which it descries. These are the times of small parties and 
of intrigue. 

The political parties which I style great are those which 
cling to principles more than to consequences; to general, 
and not to'especial cases ; to ideas, and not to men. These 
parties are usually distinguished by a nobler character, by 
more generous passions, more genuine convictions, and a 
more bold and open conduct than the others. In them, private 
interest, which always plays the chief part in political pas¬ 
sions, is more studiously veiled under the pretext of the 
public good; and it may even be sometimes concealed from 
the eyes of the very person whom it excites and impels. 

Minor parties are, on the other hand, generally deficient in 
political faith. As they are not sustained or dignified by a 
lofty purpose, they ostensibly display the egotism of their 
character in their actions. They glow with a factitious zeal; 
their language is vehement, but their conduct is timid and 
irresolute. The means they employ are as wretched as the 
end at which they aim. Hence it arises that when a calm 
state of things si^cceeds a violent revolution, the leaders of 
society seem suddenly to disappear, and the powers of the 
human mind to lie concealed. Society is convulsed by great 
parties, by minor ones it is agitated ; it is torn by the former, 


PARTIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 175 

by the latter it is degraded ; and if these sometimes save it 
by a salutary perturbation, those invariably disturb it to no 
good end. 

America has already lost the great parties which once 
divided the nation ; and if her happiness is considerably 
increased, her morality has suffered by their extinction. 
When the war of independence was terminated, and the 
foundations of the new government were to be laid down, the 
nation was divided between two opinions—two opinions which 
are as old as the world, and which are perpetually to be met 
with under all the forms and all the names which have ever 
obtained in free communities—^the one tending to limit, the 
other to extend indefinitely, the power of the people. The 
conflict of these two opinions never assumed that degree of 
violence in America which it has frequently displayed else¬ 
where. Both parties of the Americans were in fact agreed 
upon the most essential points ; and neither of them had 
to destroy a traditionary constitution, or to overthrow the 
structure of society, in order to insure its own triumph. In 
neither of them, consequently, were a great number of 
private interests affected by success or by defeat; but moral 
principles of a high order, such as the love of equality and of 
independence, were concerned in the struggle, and they suf¬ 
ficed to kindle violent passions. 

The party which desired to limit the power of the people, 
endeavored to apply its doctrines more especially to the 
constitution of the Union, whence it derived its name of 
federal. The other party, which affected to be more exclu¬ 
sively attached to the cause of liberty, took that of republican. 
America is the land of democracy, and the federalists were 
always in a minority ; but they reckoned on their side almost 
all the great men who had been called forth by the war of 
independence, andtheir moral influence was very considerable. 
Their cause was, moreover, favored by circumstances. The 
ruin of the confederation had impressed the people with a 
dread of anarchy, and the federalists did not fail to profit by 
this transient disposition of the multitude. For ten or twelve 
years they were at the head of affairs, and they were able to 
apply some, though not all, of their principles ; for the hostile 
current was becoming from day to day too violent to be 
checked or stemmed. In 1801 the republicans got possession 
of the government: Thomas Jefferson was named president; 
and he increased the influence of their party by the weight 
of his celebrity, the greatness of his talents, and the immense 
extent of his popularity. 


176 


PARTIES IN THE UNITED STATES. 


The means by which the federalists had maintained their 
position were artificial, and their resources were temporary: 
it was by the virtues or the talents of their leaders that they 
had risen to power. When the republicans attained to that 
lofty station, their opponents were overwhelmed by utter 
defeat. An immense majority declared itself against the 
retiring party, and the federalists found themselves in so small 
a minority, that they at once despaired of their future success.. 
From that moment the republican or democratic party has 
proceeded from conquest to conquest, until it has acquired 
absolute supremacy in the country. The federalists, 
perceiving that they were vanquished without resource, and 
isolated in the midst of the nation, fell into two divisions, of 
which one joined the victorious republicans, and the other 
abandoned its rallying point and its name. Many years have 
already elapsed since they ceased to exist as a party. 

The accession of the federalists to power was, in my 
opinion, one of the most fortunate incidents which accompa¬ 
nied the formation of the great American Union : they resisted 
the inevitable propensities of their age and of their country. 
But whether their theories were good or bad, they had the de¬ 
fect of being inapplicable, as a system, to the society which 
they professed to govern ; and that which occurred under the 
auspices of Jefferson must therefore have taken place sooner 
or later. But their government gave the new republic time 
to acquire a certain stability, and afterward to support the 
rapid growth of the very doctrines which they had combated. 
A considerable number of their principles were in point of 
fact embodied in the political creed of their opponents; and 
the federal constitution, wdiich subsists at the present day, is 
a lasting monument of their patriotism and their wisdom. 

Great political parties are not, then, to be met with in the 
United States at the present time. Parties, indeed, may be 
found which threaten tlie future tranquillity of the Union ; but 
there are none which seem to contest the present form of 
government, or the present course of society. Tlie parties 
by which the Union is menaced do not rest upon abstract 
principles, but upon temporal interests. These interests, dis¬ 
seminated in the provinces of so vast an empire, may be said 
to constitute rival nations rather than parties. Thus, upon a 
recent occasion, the north contended for the system of com¬ 
mercial prohibition, and the south took up arms in favor of 
free trade, simply because the north is a manufacturing, and 
the south an agricultural district; and that tlie restrictive 


PARTIES IN THE UNITED STATES. 


177 


system which was profitable to the one, was prejudicial to the 
other. 

In the absence of great parties, the United States abound 
with lesser controversies ; and public opinion is divided into 
a thousand minute shades of difference upon questions of 
very little moment. The pains which are taken to create 
parties are inconceivable, and at the present day it is no easy 
task. In the United States there is no religious animosity, 
because all religion is respected, and no sect is predominant; 
there is no jealousy of rank, because the people is every¬ 
thing, and none can contest its authority; lastly, there is no 
public misery to serve as a means of agitation, because the 
physical position of the country opens so wide a field to 
industry, that man is able to accomplish the most surprising 
undertakings with his own native resources. Nevertheless, 
ambitious men are interested in the creation of parties, since 
it is difficult to eject a person from authority upon the mere 
ground that his place is coveted by others. The skill of the 
actors in the political world lies, therefore, in the art of cre¬ 
ating parties. A political aspirant in the United States be¬ 
gins by discriminating his own interest, and by calculating 
upon those interests which may be collected around, and 
amalgamated with it; he then contrives to discover some doc¬ 
trine or some principle which may suit the purposes of this 
new association, and which he adopts in order to bring for¬ 
ward his party and to secure its popularity: just as the 
imprimatur of a king was in former days incorporated with 
the volume which it authorized, but to which it nowise, be¬ 
longed. When these preliminaries are terminated, the new 
party is ushered into the political world. 

All the domestic controversies of the Americans at first ap¬ 
pear to a stranger to be so incomprehensible and so puerile, 
that he is at a loss whether to pity a people which takes such 
arrant trifles in good earnest, or to envy that happiness which 
enables it to discuss them. But when he comes to study the 
secret propensities which govern the factions of America, he 
easily perceives that the greater part of them are more or less 
connected with one or the other of these two divisions which 
have always existed in free communities. The deeper we 
penetrate into the workings of these parties, the more do we 
perceive that the object of the one is to limit, and that of the 
other to extend, the popular authority. I do not assert that 
the ostensible end, or even that the secret aim, of American 
parties is to promote the rule of aristocracy or democracy in 
the country, but I affirm that aristocratic or democratic pas- 


178 


PARTIES IN THE UNITED STATES. 


sions may easily be detected at the bottom of all parties, and 
that, although they escape a superficial observation-, they are 
the main point and the very soul of every faction in the 
United States. 

To quote a recent example : when the president attacked 
the bank, the country was excited and parties were formed ; 
the well-informed classes rallied round the bank, the common 
people round the president. But it must not be imagined 
thabthe-people had formed a rational opinion upon a question 
which offers so many difficulties to the most experienced 
statesmen. The bank is a great establishment which enjoys 
an independent existence, and the people, accustomed to make 
and unmake whatsoever it pleases, is startled to meet with 
this obstacle to its authority. In the midst of the perpetual 
fluctuation of society, the community is irritated by so per¬ 
manent an institution, and is led to attack it, in order to see 
whether it can be shaken and controlled, like all .the other in¬ 
stitutions of the country. 


REMAINS OF THE ARISTOCRATIC PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 

Secret Opposition of wealthy Individuals to Democracy.—Their re¬ 
tirement.—Their tastes for exclusive Pleasures and for Luxury at 
Home.—Their Simplicity Abroad.—Their affected Condescension 
toward the People. 

It sometimes happens in a people among which various opi¬ 
nions prevail, that the balance of the several parties is lost, 
and one of them obtains an irresistible preponderance, over¬ 
powers all obstacles, harasses its opponents, and appropriates 
all the resources of society to its own purposes. The van¬ 
quished citizens despair of success, and they conceal their 
dissatisfaction in silence and in a general apathy. The na¬ 
tion seems to be governed by a single principle, and the pre¬ 
vailing party assumes the credit of having restored peace and 
unanimity to the country. But this apparent unanimity is 
merely a cloak to alarming dissensions and perpetual oppo¬ 
sition. 

This is precisely what occurred in America ; when the 
democratic party got the upper hand, it took exclusive pos¬ 
session of the conduct of affairs, and from that time the laws 
and customs of society have-been adapted to its caprices. 
At the present day the more affluent classes of society are 
so entirely removed from the direction of political affairs in 



PARTIES m THE UNITED STATES^ 


179 


! 


the Unit'^d States, that wealth, far from conferring a right to 
the exercise of power, is rather an obstacle than a means 
of attaining to it. The wealthy members of the community 
abandon the lists, through unwillingness to contend, and fre¬ 
quently to contend in vain,' against the poorest classes of their 
fellow-citizens. They concentrate all their enjoyments in the 
privacy of their homes, where they occupy a rank which 
cannot be assumed in public; and they constitute a private 
society in the state, which has its own tastes and its own 
pleasures* They submit to this state of things as an irre¬ 
mediable evil, but they are careful not to show that they are 
galled by its continuance; it is even not uncommon to hear 
them laud the delights of a republican government, and the 
advantages of democratic institutions when they are in pub¬ 
lic. Next to hating their enemies, men are most inclined 
to flatter them. 

Mark, for instance, that opulent citizen, who is as anxious 
as a Jew of the middle ages to conceal his wealth. His dress 
is plain, his demeanor unassuming; but the interior of his 
dwelling glitters with luxury, and none but a few chosen 
guests whom he haughtily styles his equals, are allowed to 
penetrate into this sanctuary. No European noble is more 
exclusive in his pleasures, or more jealous of the smallest 
advantages which his privileged station confers upon him. 
But the' very same individual crosses the city to reach a 
dark counting-house in the centre of traffic, where every one 
may accost him who pleases. If he meets his cobbler upon 
the way, they stop and converse ; the two citizens discuss 
the affairs of the state in which they have an equal interest, 
and they shake hands before they part. 

But beneath this artificial enthusiasm, and these obsequi¬ 
ous attentions to the preponderating power, it is easy to 
perceive that the wealthy members of the community enter¬ 
tain a hearty distaste to the democratic institutions of their 
country. The populace is at once the object of their scorn 
and of their fears. If the nml-administration of the demo¬ 
cracy ever brings about a revolutionary crisis, and if mo¬ 
narchical institutions ever become practicable in the United 
States, the truth of what I advance will become obvious. 

The two chief weapons which parties use in order to ensure 
success, are the public press, and the formation of associations. 


i 


180 


LIBERTY OF THE PEES^‘ 


CHAPTER XL 

LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

Difficulty of restraining the Liberty of the Press.—‘Particular reason^ 
which some Nations have to cherish this Liberty.—The Liberty of 
the Press a necessary Consequence of the Sovereignty of the people' 
as it is'understood in America,—'Violent Language of the periodical 
Press in the United States.—Propensities of the periodical Press.—*’ 
Illustrated by the United States.—Opinion of the Americans upon 
the Repression of the Abuse of the Liberty of the Press by judicial 
Prosecutions.—Reasons for which- the Press is less powerful in Ame¬ 
rica thai> in France. 

The influence of the liberty of the press does not aflect poli-^ 
tical opinions alone, but it extends to all the opinions of men, 
and it modifies custc«ns as well as laws. In another part of 
this work I shall attempt to determine the degree of influence 
which the liberty of the press has exercised upon civil society 
in the United States, and to point out the direction which it 
has given to the ideas, as well as the tone which it has im¬ 
parted to the character and the feelings of the Anglo-Ameri¬ 
cans, but at present I purpose simply to examine the effects 
produced by the liberty of the press in the political world. 

I confess that I do not entertain that firm and complete 
attachment to the liberty of the press, which things that are 
supren^ely good in their very nature are wont to excite in the 
mind; and I a,pprove of it more from a recollection of the 
evils it prevents, than from a consideration of the advantages- 
it ensures. 

If any one can point out an intermediate, and yet a tenable 
position, between the complete independence and the entire 
subjection of the public expression of opinion, I should per¬ 
haps be inclined to adopt itbut the difficulty is to discover 
this position. If it is your intention to correct the abuses of 
unlicensed printing, and to restore the use of orderly Ian. 
guage, yom may in the first insttonce try the offender by 
jury ; but if the jury acc|uits him, the opinion which was that 
of a single individual becomes the opinion- of the country at 
large. Too much and too little has therefore hitherto been 
done; if you proceed, you must bring the delinquent before 
permanent magistrates; but even here the cause must her 
heard before it can be decided; and the very principles 
which no book would ha’ve ventured to avow are blazoned 
forth in the pteadings, and what was obscurely hinted at in ai 


fri Tfifi tfNlfUD StATES. 


IBt 

single composition is then repeated in a multitude of othe? 
publications. The language in which a thought is embodied 
is the mere carcase of the thought, and not the idea itself 5 
tribunals may condemn the form, but the sense and spirit of 
the Work is too subtle for‘their authority J too much has still 
been done to recede, too little to attain your end j you must 
therefore proceed. If you establish a censorship .of the 
press, the tongue of the public speaker will still make itself 
heard, and you have only increased the mischieh The pow.^ 
ers of thought do not rely, like the powers of physical 
strength, upon the number of their mechanical agents, noi* 
can a host of authors be reckoned like the troops which com¬ 
pose an army ; on the contrary, the authority of a principlo 
is often increased by the smallness of the number of men by 
whom it is expressed. The words of a strong-minded man, 
which penetrate amid the passions of a listening assembly, 
have more weight than the vociferations of a thousand orators } 
and if it be allowed to speak freely in any public place, the 
consequence is the same as if free speaking was allowed in 
every village. The liberty of discourse must therefore be 
destroyed as well as the liberty of the 'press ; this is the 
necessary term of your efforts ; but if your object was to 
repress the abuses of liberty, they have brought yoU to the 
feet of a despot. You have been led from the extreme of 
independence to the extreme of subjection, without meeting 
with a single tenable position for shelter or repose. 

There are certain nations which have peculiar reasons for 
cherishing the press, independently of the general motives 
which I have just pointed out. For in certain countries which 
profess to enjoy the privileges of freedom, every individual 
agent of the government may violate the laws with impunity, 
since those whom he oppresses cannot prosecute him before 
the courts of justice. In this case the liberty of the press is 
not merely a guarantee, but it is the only guarantee of their 
liberty and their security which the citizens possess. If the 
rulers of these nations proposed to abolish the independence 
of the press, the people would be justified in saying: “ Give 
Us the right of prosecuting your offences before the ordinary 
tribunals, and perhaps we may then waive our right of ap¬ 
peal to the tribunal of public opinion.” 

But in the countries in which the doctrine of the sovereign¬ 
ty of the people ostensibly prevails, the censorship of the press 
is not only dangerous, but it is absurd. When the right of 
every citizen to co-operate in the government of society is 
acknowledged, every citizen must be presumed to possess the 
It 


1B2 


LIBERTY OE THE PRESS 


power of discriminating between the different opinions of his 
cotemporaries, and of appreciating the different facts from 
which inferences may be drawn. The sovereignty of the 
people and the liberty of the press may therefore be looked 
upon as correlative institutions; just as the censorship of the 
press and universal suffrage are two things which are irrecon* 
cileably opposed, and which cannot long be retained among 
the institutions of the same people. Not a single individual 
of the twelve millions who inhabit the territory of the United 
States has as yet dared to propose any restrictions to the liber¬ 
ty of the press. The first newspaper over which I cast my 
eyes, after my arrival in America, contained the following 
article : 

“ In all this affair, the language of Jackson has been that of a heart¬ 
less despot, solely occupied with the preservation of his own authority. 
Ambition is his crime, and it will be his punishment too: intrigue is 
his native element, and intrigue will confound his tricks, and will de¬ 
prive him of his power ; he governs by means of corruption, and his 
immoral practices will redound to his shame and confusion. His con¬ 
duct in the political arena has been that of a shameless and lawless 
gamester. He succeeded at the time, but the hour of retribution ap¬ 
proaches, and he will be obliged to disgorge his winnings, to throw 
aside his false dice, and to end his days in some retirement where he 
may curse his madness at his leisure; for ropentance is a virtue with 
which his heart is likely to remain for ever unacquainted.” 

It is not uncommonly imagined in France, that the viru¬ 
lence of the press originates in the uncertain social condition, 
in the political excitement, and the general sense of conse¬ 
quent evil which prevail in that country; and it is therefore 
supposed that as soon as society has resumed a certain degree 
of composure, the press will abandon its present vehemence. 
I am inclined to think that the above causes explain the rea¬ 
son of the extraordinary ascendency it has acquired over the 
nation, but that they do not exercise much influence upon the 
tone of its language. The periodical press appears to me to 
be actuated by passions and propensities independent of the 
circumstances in which it is placed ; and the present position 
of America corroborates this opinion. 

America is, perhaps, at this moment, the country of the 
whole world which contains the fewest germs of revolution ; 
but the press is not less destructive in its principles than in 
France, and it displays the same violence without the same 
reasons for indignation. In America, as in France, it con- 
stitutes a singular power, so strangely composed of mingled 
good and evil, that it is at the same time indispensable to the 
existence of freedom, and nearly incompatible with the main- 


IN THE UNITED STATES. 


183 


tenance of public order. Its power is certainly much greater 
in France than in the United States; though nothing is more 
rare in the latter country than to hear of a prosecution having 
been instituted against it. The reason of this is perfectly 
simple ; the Americans having once admitted the doctrine of 
sovereignty of the people, apply it with perfect consistency. 
It was never their intention to found a permanent state of 
things with elements which undergo daily modifications ; and 
there is consequently nothing criminal in an attack upon the 
existing laws, provided it be not attended with a violent infrac¬ 
tion of them. They are moreover of opinion that courts of 
justice are unable to check the abuses of the press; and 
that as the subtlety of human language perpetually eludes the 
severity of judicial analysis, offences of this nature are apt 
to escape the hand which attempts to apprehend them. They 
hold that to act with efficacy upon the press, it would be ne¬ 
cessary to find a tribunal, not only devoted to the existing 
order of things, but capable of surmounting the influence of 
public opinion; a tribunal which should conduct its proceed¬ 
ings without publicity, which should pronounce its decrees 
without assigning its motives, and punish the intentions even 
more than the language of an author. Whosoever should 
have the power of creating and maintaining a tribunal of this 
kind, would waste his time in prosecuting the liberty of the 
press ; for he would be the supreme master of the whole com¬ 
munity, and he would be as free to rid himself of the authors 
as of their writings. In this question, therefore, there is no 
medium between servitude and extreme license ; in order to 
enjoy the inestimable benefits which the liberty of the press 
ensures, it is necessary to submit to the inevitable evils which 
it engenders. To expect to acquire the former, and to escape 
the latter, is to cherish one of those illusions which commonly 
mislead nations in their times of sickness, when, tired with 
faction and exhausted by effort, they attempt to combine hos¬ 
tile opinions and contrary principles upon the same soil. 

The small influence of the American journals is attributa¬ 
ble to several reasons, among which are the following :— 

The liberty of writing, like all other liberty, is most formi- 
dable when it is a novelty ; for a people which has never 
been accustomed to co-operate in the conduct of state affairs, 
places implicit confidence in the first tribune who arouses its 
attention. The Anglo-Americans have enjoyed this liberty 
ever since the foundation of the settlements ; moreover, the 
press cannot create human passions by its own power, how¬ 
ever skilfully it may kindle them where they exist. In Ame- 


184 


LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 


rica politics are discussed with animation and a Varied acti» 
vity, but they rarely touch those deep passions which are 
excited whenever the positive interest of a part of the com¬ 
munity is impaired: but in the United States the interests of 
the community are in a most prosperous condition. A single 
glance upon a French and an American newspaper is suffi- 
cienttoshow the difference which exists between the two nations 
On this head. In France the space allotted to commercial ad¬ 
vertisements is very limited, and the intelligence is not 
considerable, but the most essential part of the journal is that 
which contains the discussion of the politics of the day. In 
America three quarters of the enormous sheet which is set 
before the reader are filled with advertisements, and the re¬ 
mainder is 'frequently occupied by political intelligence or 
trivial anecdotes: it is only from time to time that one finds 
a corner devoted to passionate discussions like those with 
which the journalists of France are wont to indulge their 
readers. 

It has been demonstrated by observation, and discovered 
by the innate sagacity of the pettiest as well as the greatest 
of despots, that the influence of a power is increased in pro¬ 
portion as its direction is rendered more central. In France 
the press combines a twofold centralisation : almost all its 
power is centred in the same spot, and vested in the same 
hands, for its organs are far from numerous. The influence 
of a public press thus constituted, upon a sceptical nation, 
must be unbounded. It is an enemy with which a govern¬ 
ment may sign an occasional truce, but which it is difficult to 
resist for any length of time. 

Neither of these kinds of centralisation exists in America. 
The United States have no metropolis ; the intelligence as 
Well as the power of the country is dispersed abroad, and in¬ 
stead of radiating from a point, they cross each other in every 
direction ; the Americans have established no central control 
over the expression of opinion, any more than over the con¬ 
duct of business. These are circumstances which do not 
depend on human foresight; but it is owing to the laws of 
the Union that there are no licenses to be granted to the 
printers, no securities demanded from editors, as in France, 
and no stamp duty as in France and England. The conse¬ 
quence of this is that nothing is easier than to set up a news¬ 
paper, and a small number of readers suffices to defray the 
expenses of the editor. 

The number of periodical and occasional publications 
which appear in the United States actually surpa.sses belief. 


IN THE UNITED STATES 


185 


The most enlightened Americans attribute the subordinate 
influence of the press to this excessive dissemination ; and it 
is adopted as an axiom of political science in that country, 
that the only way to neutralise the effect of public journals 
is to multiply them indefinitely. I cannot conceive why a 
truth which is so self-evident has not already been more 
generally admitted in Europe ; it is comprehensible that the 
persons who hope to bring about revolutions, by means of the 
press, should be desirous of confining its action to a few 
powerful organs ; but it is perfectly incredible that the par¬ 
tisans of the existing state of things, and the natural sup¬ 
porters of the laws, should attempt to diminish the influence 
of the press by concentrating its authority. The govern¬ 
ments of Europe seem to treat the press with the courtesy of 
the knights of old; they are anxious to furnish it with the 
same central power which they have found ^o be so trusty a 
weapon, in order to enhance the glory of their resistance to 
its attacks. 

In America there is scarcely a hamlet which has not its 
own newspaper. It may readily be imagined that neither 
discipline nor unity of design can be communicated to so 
. multifarious a host, and each one is constantly led to fight 
under his own standard. All the political journals of the 
United States are indeed arrayed on the side of the adminis¬ 
tration or against it; but they attack and defend it in a thou¬ 
sand different ways. They cannot succeed in forming those 
great currents of opinion which overwhelm the most solid 
obstacles. This division of the influence of the press pro¬ 
duces a variety of other consequences which are scarcely 
less remarkable. The facility with which journals can be 
established induces a multitude of individuals to take a part 
in them ; but as the extent of competition precludes the pos¬ 
sibility of considerable profit, the most distinguished classes 
of society are rarely led to engage in these undertakings. 
But such is the numljer of the public prints, that even'if they 
were a source of wealth, writers of ability could not be 
found to direct them all. The journalists of the United 
States are usually placed in a very humble position, with a 
scanty education, and a vulgar turn of mind. The will of 
the majority is the most general of laws, and it establishes 
certain habits which form the characteristics of each pecu¬ 
liar class of society ; thus it dictates the etiquette practised 
at courts and the etiquette of the bar. The characteristics 
of the French journalist consist in a violent, but frequently 
an eloquent and lofty manner of discussing the politics of 
17 * 


186 


LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 


the day ; and the exceptions to this habitual practice are 
only occasional. The characteristics of the American jour¬ 
nalist consist in an open and coarse appeal to the passions of 
the populace ; and he habitually abandons the principles of 
political science to assail the characters of individuals, to 
track them into private life, and.disclose all their weaknesses 
and errors. 

Nothing can be more deplorable than this abuse of the 
powers of thought; I shall have occasion to point out here¬ 
after the influence of the newspapers upon the taste and the 
morality of the American people, but my present subject ex¬ 
clusively concerns the political world. It cannot be denied 
that the effects of this extreme license of the press tend indi¬ 
rectly to the maintenance of public order. The individuals 
who are already in possession of a high station in the esteem 
of their fellow-citizens, are afraid to write in the newspa¬ 
pers, and they are thus deprived of the most powerful instru¬ 
ment which they can use to excite the passions of the multi¬ 
tude to their own advantage.* 

The personal opinions of the editors have no kind of weight 
in the eyes of the public : the only use of a journal is, that 
it imparts the knowledge of certain facts, and it is only by , 
altering or distorting those facts, that a journalist can con¬ 
tribute to the support of his own views. 

But although the press is limited to these resources, its influ¬ 
ence in America is immense. It is the power which impels 
the circulation of political life through all the districts of 
that vast territory. Its eye is constantly open to detect the 
secret springs of political designs, and to summon the leaders 
of all parties to the bar of public opinion. It rallies the in¬ 
terests of the community round certain principles, and it 
draws up the creed which factions adopt; for it affords a 
means of intercourse between parties which hear, and which 
address each other, without ever having been in immediate 
contact. When a great number of the organs of the press 
adopt the same line of conduct, their influence becomes irre¬ 
sistible ; and public opinion, when it is perpetually assailed 
from the same side, eventually yields to the attack. In the 
United States each separate journal exercises but little author¬ 
ity : but the power of the periodical press is only second to 
that of the people.f 

* They only write in the papers when they choose to address the 
people in their own name; as, for instance, when they are called upon 
to repel calumnious imputations, and to correct a mis-statement of 
facts. 

t See Appendix P. 


IN THE UNITED STATES. 


187 


The Opinions which are established in the United States under the 
Empire of the Liberty of the Press, are frequently more firmly 
rooted than those which are formed elsewhere under the Sanction 
of a Censor. 

In the United States the democracy perpetually raises fresh 
individuals to the conduct of public affairs ; and the mea¬ 
sures of the administration are consequently seldom regu¬ 
lated by the strict rules of consistency or of order. But the 
general principles of the government are more stable, and 
the opinions most prevalent in society are generally more 
durable than in many other countries. When once the Ame¬ 
ricans have taken up an idea, whether it be well or ill-founded, 
nothing is more difficult than to eradicate it from their minds. 
The same tenacity of opinion has been observed in England, 
where, for the last century, greater freedom of conscience, 
and more invincible prejudices have existed, than in all the 
other countries of Europe. I attribute this consequence to a 
cause which may at first sight appear to have a very opposite 
tendency, namely, to the liberty of the press. The nations 
among which this liberty exists are as apt to cling to their 
^opinions from pride as from conviction. They cherish them 
because they hold them to be just, and because they exer¬ 
cised their own free will in choosing them; and they main¬ 
tain them, not only because they are true, but because they 
are their own. Several other reasons conduce to the same 
end. 

It was remarked by a man of genius, that “ ignorance lies 
at the two ends of knowledge.” Perhaps it would have been 
•more correct to say that absolute convictions are to be met 
with at the two extremities, and that doubt lies in the middle ; 
for the human intellect may be considered in three distinct 
states, which frequently succeed one another. 

A man believes implicitly, because he adopts a proposition 
without inquiry. He doubts as soon as he is assailed by the 
objections which his inquiries may have aroused. But he 
frequently succeeds in satisfying these doubts, and then he 
begins to believe afresh: he no longer lays hold on a truth in 
its most shadowy and uncertain form, but he sees it clearly 
before him, and he advances onward by the light it gives him.* 
When the liberty of the press acts upon men who are in 
the first of these three states, it does not immediately disturb 

* It may, however, be doubted whether this rational and self-guiding 
conviction arouses as much fervor or enthusiastic devotedness in men as 
their first dogmatical belief. 



188 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IN THE UNITED STATICS. 

their habit of believing implicitly without investigation, but 
It constantly modifies the objects of their intuitive convictions. 
The human mind continues to discern but one point upon the 
whole intellectual horizon, and that point is in continual mo¬ 
tion. Such are the symptoms of sudden revolutions, and of 
the misfortunes that are sure to befall those generations which 
abruptly adopt the unconditional freedom of the press. 

The circle of’ novel ideas is, however, soon terminated ; 
the torch of experience is upon them, and the doubt and 
mistrust which their uncertainty produces, become universal. 
We may rest assured that the majority of mankind will 
either believe they know not wherefore, or will not know 
what to believe. Few are the beings who can ever hope to 
attain that state of rational and independent conviction which 
true knowledge can beget, in defiance of the attacks of doubt. 

It has been remarked that in times of great religious fer¬ 
vor, men sometimes change their religious opinions; where¬ 
as, in times of general scepticism, every one clings to his own 
persuasion. The same thing takes place in politics under 
the liberty of the press. In countries where all the theories 
of social science have been contested in their turn, the citi¬ 
zens who have adopted one of them, stick to it, not so much < 
because they are assured of its excellence, as because they are 
not convinced of the superiority of any other. In the present 
age men are not very ready to die in defence of their opi¬ 
nions, but they are rarely inclined to change them ; and there 
are fewer martyrs as well as fewer apostates. 

Another still more valid reason may yet be adduced: 
when no abstract opinions are looked upon as certain, men 
cling to the mere propensities and external interest of their 
position, which are naturally more tangible and more perma¬ 
nent than any opinions in the world. 

It is not a question of easy solution whether the aristocracy 
or the democracy is most fit to govern a country. But it is 
certain that democracy annoys one part of the community, 
and that aristocracy oppresses another part. When the 
question is reduced to the simple expression of the struggle 
between poverty and wealth, the tendency of each side of the 
dispute becomes perfectly evident without farther controversy. 


POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES. 189 


CHAPTER XII. 

POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

Daily use which the Anglo-Americans make of the Right of Associa¬ 
tion.-—Three kinds of political Association.—In what Manner the 
Americans apply the repre'sentative System to Associations.—Dan¬ 
gers resulting to the State.—Great Convention of 1831 relative to the 
Tariff. Legislative character of this Convention.—Why the unlim¬ 
ited Exercise of the Right of Association is less dangerous in the 
United States than elsewhere.—Why it may be looked upon as ne¬ 
cessary.—Utility of Associations in a democratic People. 

In no country in the world has the principle of association 
been more successfully used, or more unsparingly applied to 
a multitude of different objects, than in America. Beside 
the permanent associations which are established by law 
under the names of townships, cities, and counties, a vast 
number of others are formed and maintained by the agency 
of private individuals. 

The citizen of the United States is taught from.his earliest 
infancy to rely upon his own exertions, in order to resist the 
evils and the difficulties of life ; he looks upon the social 
authority with an eye of mistrust and anxiety, and he only 
claims its assistance when he is quite unable to shift without 
it. This habit may even'be traced in the schools of the 
rising generation, where the children in their games are wont 
to submit to rules which they have themselves established, 
and to punish misdemeanors which they have themselves de¬ 
fined. The same spirit pervades every act of social life. If 
a stoppage occurs in a thoroughfare, and the circulation of the 
public is hindered, the neighbors immediately constitute a 
deliberative bo'dy; and this extemporaneous assembly gives 
rise to an executive power, which remedies the inconvenience, 
before anybody has thought of recurring to an authority su¬ 
perior to that of the persons immediately concerned. If the 
public pleasures are concerned, an association is formed to 
provide for the splendor and the regularity of the entertain¬ 
ment. Societies are formed to resist enemies which are ex¬ 
clusively of a moral nature, and to diminish the vice of 
intemperance: in the United States associations are estab¬ 
lished to promote public order, commerce, industry, morality, 
and religion ; for there is no end which the human will, 
seconded by the collective exertions of individuals, despairs 
of attaining. 


190 


POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS 


I shall hereafter have occasion to show the effects of asso--* 
ciation upon the course of society, and I must confine myself 
for the present to the political world. When once the right 
of association is recognized, the citizens may employ it in 
several different ways. 

An association consists simply in the public assent which 
a number of individuals give to certain doctrines ; and in the 
engagement which they contract to promote the spread of 
those doctrines by their exertions. The right of associating 
with these views is very analogous to the liberty of unlicensed 
writing ; but societies thus formed possess more authority 
than the press. When an opinion is represented by a society, 
it necessarily assumes a more exact and explicit form. It 
numbers its partisans, and compromises their welfare in its 
cause ; they, on the other hand, become acquainted with 
each other, and their zeal is increased by their number. An 
association unites the efforts of minds which have a tendency 
to diverge, in one single channel, and urges them vigorously 
toward one single end which it points out. 

The second degree in the right of association is the power 
^ of meeting. When an association is allowed to establish 
centres of action at certain important points in the country, 
its activity is increased, and its influence extended. Men 
have the opportunity of seeing each other ; means of execu¬ 
tion are more readily combined ; and opinions are maintained 
with a degree of warmth and energy which written language 
cannot approach. 

Lastly, in the exercise of the right of political association, 
there is a third degree : the partisans of an opinion may unite 
in electoral bodies, and choose delegates to represent them in 
a central assembly. This is, properly speaking, the appli¬ 
cation of the representative system to a party. 

Thus, in the first instance, a society is formed between in¬ 
dividuals professing the same opinion, and the tie which keeps 
it together is of a purely intellectual nature : in the second 
case, small assemblies are formed which only represent a 
fraction of the party. Lastly, in the third case, they consti¬ 
tute a separate nation in the midst of the nation, a govern¬ 
ment within the government. Their delegates, like the real 
delegates of the majority, represent the entire collective force 
of their party ; and they enjoy a certain degree of that 
national dignity and great influence which belong to the 
chosen representative^ of the people. It is true that they 
have not the right of making the laws ; but they have the 
power of attacking those which are in being, and of drawing 


IN THE UNITED STATES. 


191 


. up beforehand those whicli they may afterward cause to be 
adopted. 

If, in a people whicli is imperfectly accustomed to the ex¬ 
ercise of freedom, or which is exposed to violent political 
passions, a deliberating minority, which confines itself to the 
contemplation of future laws, be placed in juxtaposition to the 
legislative majority, I cannot but believe that public tranquil¬ 
lity incurs very great risks in that nation. There is doubtless a 
very wide difference between proving that one law is in itself 
better than another, and proving that the former ought to be 
substituted for the latter. But the imagination of the popu¬ 
lace is very apt to overlook this difference, which is so appa¬ 
rent in the minds of thinking men. It sometimes happens 
that a nation is divided into two nearly equal parties, each of 
which affects to represent the majority. If, in immediate 
contiguity to the directing power, another power be estab¬ 
lished, which exercises almost as much moral authority as 
the former, it is not to be believed that it will long be content 
to speak without acting; or that it will always be restrained 
by the abstract consideration of the nature of associations, 
which are meant to direct, but not to ’enforce opinions, to 
suggest but not to make the laws. 

The more we consider the independence of the press in its 
principal consequences, the more are we convinced that it is 
the chief, and, so to speak, the constitutive element of freedom 
in the modern world. A nation which is determined to re¬ 
main free, is therefore right in demanding the unrestrained 
exercise of this independence. But the unrestrained liberty 
of political association cannot be entirely assimilated to the 
liberty of the press. The one is at the same time less neces¬ 
sary and more dangerous than the other. A nation may 
confine it within certain limits without forfeiting any part of 
its self-control; and it may sometimes be obliged to do so in 
order to maintain its own authority. 

In America the liberty of association for political purposes 
is unbounded. An example will show in the clearest light to 
what an'extent this privilege is tolerated. 

The question of the Tariff, or of free trade, produced a 
great manifestation of party feeling in America ; the tariff 
was not only a subject of debate as a matter of opinion, but 
it exercised a favorable or a prejudicial influence upon seve¬ 
ral very powerful interests of thestates. The north attribut¬ 
ed a great portion of its prosperity, and the south .all its suf¬ 
ferings, to this system. Insomuch, that for a long time the 


192 


POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS 


tariff was the sole source of the political animosities which 
agitated the Union. 

In 1831, when the dispute was raging with the utmost viru¬ 
lence, a private citizen of Massachusetts proposed to all the 
enemies of the tariff, by means of the public prints, to send 
delegates to Philadelphia in order to consult together upon 
the means which were most fitted to promote the freedom of 
trade. This proposal circulated in a few days from Maine 
to New Orleans by the power of the printing press: the op¬ 
ponents of the tariff adopted it with enthusiasm ; meetings 
were formed on all sides, and delegates were named. The 
majority of these individuals were well known, and some of 
them had earned a considerable degree of celebrity. South Ca¬ 
rolina alone, which afterward took up arms in the same cause, 
sent sixty-three delegates. On the 1st October, 1831, this 
assembly, which, according to the American custom, had 
taken the name of a convention, met at Philadelphia ; it con¬ 
sisted of more than two hundred members. Its debates were 
public, and they at once assumed a legislative character; the 
extent of the powers of congress, the theories of free trade, 
and the different clauses of the tariff, were discussed in turn. 
At the end of ten days’ deliberation, the convention broke up, 
after having published an address to the American people, in 
which it is declared : 

I. The congress had not the right of making a tariff, and 
that the existing tariff was unconstitutional. 

II. That the prohibition of free trade was prejudicial to 
the interests of all nations, and to that of the American peo¬ 
ple in particular. 

It must be acknowledged that the unrestrained liberty of 
political association has not hitherto produced, in the United 
States, those fatal consequences which might perhaps be ex¬ 
pected from it elsewhere. The right of association was im¬ 
ported from England, and it has always existed in America. 
So that the exercise of this privilege is now amalgamated 
with the manners and customs of the people. At the pre¬ 
sent time, the liberty of association is become a necessary 
guarantee against the tyranny of the majority. In the Uni¬ 
ted States, as soon as a party has become preponderant, all 
the public authority passes under its control ; its private sup¬ 
porters occupy all the places, and have all the force of the 
administration at their disposal. As the most distinguished 
partisans of the other side of the question are unable to sur¬ 
mount the obstacles which exclude them from power, they 
require some means of establishing themselves upon their own 


IN THE UNITED STATES. 


193 


basis, and of opposing the moral authority of the minority to 
the physical power which domineers over it. Thus, a dan¬ 
gerous expedient is used to obviate a still more formidable 
danger. 

The omnipotence of the majority appears to me to present 
such extreme perils to the American republics, that the dan¬ 
gerous measure which is used to repress it, seems to be more 
advantageous than prejudicial. And here I am about to ad¬ 
vance a proposition which may remind the reader of what I 
said before in speaking of municipal freedom. There are 
no countries in which associations are more needed, to pre¬ 
vent the despotism of faction, or the arbitrary power of a 
prince, than those which are democratically constituted. In 
aristocratic nations, the body of the nobles and the more opu¬ 
lent part of the community are in themselves natural associa¬ 
tions, which act as checks upon the abuses of power. In 
countries in which those associations do not exist, if private 
individuals are unable to create an artificial and a temporary 
substitute for them, I can imagine no permanent protection 
against the most galling tyranny ; and a great people may be 
oppressed by a small Action, or by a single individual, with 
impunity. 

The meeting of a great political convention (for there are 
conventions of all kinds), which may frequently become a 
necessary measure, is always a serious occurrence, even in 
America, and one which is never looked forward to by the 
judicious friends of the country, without alarm. This was 
very perceptible in the convention of 1831, at which the ex¬ 
ertions of all the most distinguished members of the assembly 
tended to moderate its language, and to restrain the subjects 
which it treated within certain limits. It is probable, in fact, 
that the convention of 1831 exercised a very great influence 
upon the minds of the malecontents, and prepared them for 
the open revolt against the commercial laws of the Union, 
which took place in 1832. 

It cannot be denied that the unrestrained liberty of associa¬ 
tion for political purposes, is the privilege which a people is 
longest in learning how to exercise. If it does not throw the 
nation into anarchy, it perpetually augments the chances of 
that calamity. On one point, however, this perilous liberty 
offers a security against dangers of another kind; in coun¬ 
tries where associations are free, secret societies are unknown. 
In America there are numerous factions, but no conspb 
racies. 


18 





194 


POLITICAL ASSOCIATIOJCS 


Different ways in which the Right of Association is understood hi 

Europe and in the United States. Different use which is made 

of it. 

The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of 
acting for himself, is that of combining his exertions with 
those of his fellow-creatures, and of acting in common witlt 
them. I am therefore led to conclude, that the right of asso¬ 
ciation is almost as inalienable as the right of personal liberty. 
No legislator can attack it without impairing the very foun¬ 
dations of society. Nevertheless, if the liberty of associa¬ 
tion is a fruitful source of advantages and prosperity to some 
nations, it may be perverted or carried to excess by others, 
and the element of life may be changed into an element of 
destruction. A comparison of the different methods which 
associations pursue, in those countries in which they are 
managed with discretion, as well a.s in those where liberty 
degenerates into license, may perhaps be thought useful both 
to governments and to parties. The greater part of Euro¬ 
peans look upon an association as a weapon which is to be 
hastily fashioned, and immediately tried in the conflict. A 
society is to be formed for discussion, but the idea of impend¬ 
ing action prevails in the minds of those who constitute it: 
it is, in fact, an army ; and the time given to parley, serves to 
reckon up the strength and to animate the courage of the 
host, after which they direct the march against the enemy. 
Resources which lie within the bounds of the law may sug¬ 
gest themselves to the persons who compose it, as means, but 
never as the only means, of success. 

Such, however, is not the manner in which the right of as¬ 
sociation is understood in the United States. In America, 
the citizens who form the minority associate, in order, in the 
first place, to show their numerical strength, and so to dimin¬ 
ish the moral authority of the majority ; and, in the second 
place, to stimulate competition, and to discover those argu¬ 
ments which are most fitted -to act upon the majority ; for 
they always entertain hopes of drawing over their opponents 
to their own side, and of afterward disposing of the supreme 
power in their name. Political associations in the United 
States are therefore peaceable in their intentions, and strictly 
legal in the means which they employ ; and they assert with 
perfect truth, that they only aim at success by lawful ex¬ 
pedients. 

The difference which exists between the Americans and 
ourselves depends on several causes. In Europe there are 


IN THE UNITED STATES. 


195 


numerous parties so diametrically opposed to the majority, 
that they can never hope to acquire its support, and at the 
same time they think that they are sufficiently strong in them¬ 
selves to struggle and to defend their cause. When a party 
of this kind forms an association, its object is, not to conquer, 
but to fight. In America, the individuals who hold opinions 
very much opposed to those of the majority, are no sort of 
impediment to its power; and all other parties hope to win it 
over to their own principles in the end. The exercise of the 
right of association becomes dangerous in proportion to the 
impossibility which excludes great parties from acquiring the 
majority. In a country like the United States, in which the 
differences of opinion are mere differences of hue, the right 
of association may remain unrestrained without evil conse¬ 
quences. The inexperience of many of the European nations 
in the enjoyment of liberty, leads them only to look upon the 
liberty of association as a right of attacking the government. 
The first notion which presents itself to a party, as well as to 
an individual, when it has acquired a consciousness of its own 
strength, is that of violence : the notion of persuasion arises 
at a later period, and is only derived from experience. The 
English, who are divided into parties which differ most essen¬ 
tially from each other, rarely abuse the right of association, 
because they have long been accustomed to exercise it. In 
France, the passion for war is so intense that there is no un¬ 
dertaking so mad, or so injurious to the welfare of the state, 
that a man does not consider himself honored in defending it, 
at the risk of his life. 

But perhaps the most powerful of the causes which tend 
to mitigate the excesses of political association in the United 
States is universal suffrage. In countries in which universal 
suffrage exists, the majority is never doubtful, because neither 
party can pretend to represent that portion of the community 
which has not voted. The associations which are formed 
are aware, as well as the nation at large, that they do not 
represent the majority; this is, indeed, a condition insepara¬ 
ble from their existence ; for if they did represent the pre¬ 
ponderating power, they would change the law instead of 
soliciting its reform. The consequence of this is, that the 
moral influence of the government which they attack is very 
much increased, and their own power is very much en¬ 
feebled. 

In Europe there are few associations which do not affect to 
represent the majority, or which do not believe that they re¬ 
present it. This conviction or this pretension tends to aug- 


196 POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

ment their force amazingly, and contributes no less to legalize 
their measures. Violence may seem to be excusable in 
defence of the cause of oppressed right. Thus it is, in the 
vast labyrinth of human laws, that extreme liberty sometimes 
corrects abuses of license, and that extreme democracy obvi¬ 
ates the dangers of democratic government. In Europe, 
associations consider themselves, in some degree, as the legis¬ 
lative and executive councils of the people, which is unable 
to speak for itself. In America, where they only represent a 
minority of the nation, they argue and they petition. 

The means which the associations of Europe employ, are 
in accordance with the end which they propose to obtain. As 
the principal aim of these bodies is to act, and not to debate, 
to fight rather than to persuade, they are naturally led -to 
adopt a form of organization which differs from the ordinary 
customs of civil bodies, and which assumes the habits and 
the maxims of military life. They centralize the direction 
of their resources as much as possible, and they intrust the 
power of the whole party to a very small number of leaders. 

The members of these associations reply to a watchword, like 
soldiers on duty: they profess the doctrine of passive obedi¬ 
ence ; say rather, that in uniting together they at once abjure 
the exercise of their own judgment and free will ; and the 
tyrannical control, which these societies exercise, is often far 
more insupportable than the authority possessed over society 
by the government which they attack. Their moral force is 
much diminished by these excesses, and they lose the power¬ 
ful interest which is always excited by a struggle between 
oppressors and the oppressed. The man who in given cases 
consents to obey his fellows with servility, and who submits 
his activity, and even his opinions, to their control, can have 
no claim to rank as a free citizen. 

The Americans have also established certain forms of gov¬ 
ernment which are applied to their associations, but these are 
invariably borrowed jfrom the forms of the civil administra¬ 
tion. The independence of each individual is formally recog¬ 
nized ; the tendency of the members of the association points, 
as it does in the body of the community, toward the same_ 
end, but they are not obliged to follow the same track. No 
one abjures the exercise of his reason and his free will; but 
every one exerts that reason and that will for the benefit of a 
common undertaking. 


GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 197 


CHAPTER XIII. 

GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 

I AM well aware of the difficulties which attend this part of 
my subject, but although every expression which I am about 
to make use of may clash, upon some one point, with the 
feelings of the different parties which divide my country, I 
shall speak my opinion with the most perfect openness. 

In Europe we are at a loss how to judge the true character 
anjl the more permanent propensities of democracy, because 
in Europe two conflicting principles exist, and we do not 
know what to attribute to the principles themselves, and what 
to refer to the passions which they bring into collision. Such, 
however, is not the case in America; there the people reigns 
without any obstacle, and it has no perils to dread, and no in¬ 
juries to avenge. In America, democracy is swayed by its 
own free propensities; its course is natural, and its activity 
is unrestrained : the United States consequently afford the 
most favorable opportunity of studying its real character. 
And to no people can this inquiry be more vitally interesting 
than to the French nation, which is blindly driven onward by 
a daily and irresistible impulse, toward a state of things 
which may prove either despotic or republican, but which will 
assuredly be democratic. 


UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE. 

I HAVE already observed that universal suffrage has been 
adopted in all the states of the Union : it consequently occurs 
among diflerent populations which occupy very different posi¬ 
tions in the scale of society. I have had opportunities of ob¬ 
serving its effects in different localities, and among races of 
men who are nearly strangers to each other by their Ian-- 
guage, their religion, and their manner of life ; in Louisiana 
as well as in New England, in Georgia and in Canada. I 
have remarked that universal suffrage is far from producing 
in America either all the good or all the evil consequences 
which are assigned to it in Europe, and that its effects differ 
very widely from those which are usually attributed to it. 

18* 



198 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE, AND INSTINCTIVE PREFERENCES OF 
THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. 

In the United States the most talented Individuals are rarely placed at 
the Head of Affairs.—Reasons of this Peculiarity.—The Envy which 
prevails in the lower Orders of France against the higher Classes, is 
not a French, but a purely democratic Sentiment.—For what Reason 
the most distinguished Men in America frequently seclude them¬ 
selves from public affairs. 

Many people in Europe are apt to believe without saying it, 
or to say without believing it, that one of the great advantages 
of universal suffrage is, that it intrusts the direction of public 
affairs to men who are worthy of the public confidence. They 
admit that the people is unable to govern for itself, but they 
aver that it is always sincerely disposed to promote the w el- 
fare of the state, and that it instinctively designates those 
persons who are animated by the same good wishes, and who 
are the most fit to wield the supreme authority. I confess 
that the observations I made in America by no means coincide 
with these opinions. On my arrival in the United States I 
was surprised to find so much distinguished talent among the 
subjects, and so little among the heads of the government. It 
is a well-authenticated fact, that at the present day the 
most talented men in the United States are very rarely placed 
at the head of affairs ; and it must be acknowledged that 
such has been the result, in proportion as democracy has out¬ 
stepped all its former limits. The race of American states¬ 
men has evidently dwindled most remarkably in the course 
of the last fifty years. 

Several causes may be assigned to this phenomenon. It 
is impossible, notwithstanding the most strenuous exertions, 
to raise the intelligence of the people above a certain level. 
Whatever may be the facilities of acquiring information, 
whatever may be the profusion of easy methods and of cheap 
science, the human mind can never be instructed and edu¬ 
cated without devoting a considerable space of time to those 
objects. 

The greater or the lesser possibility of subsisting'without 
labor is therefore the necessary boundary of intellectual im¬ 
provement. This boundary is more remote in some coun¬ 
tries, and more restricted in others ; but it must exist some¬ 
where as long as the people is constrained to work in order 
to procure the means of physical ^subsistence, that is to say, 
as long as it retains its popular character. It is therefore 


DEMOCRACY IN AMKPaCA. 


199 


quite as difficult to imagine a state in which all the citizens 
should be very well-informed, as a state in which they should 
all be wealthy ; these two difficulties may be looked upon as 
correlative. It may very readily be admitted that the mass 
of the citizens are sincerely disposed to promote the welfare 
of their country ; nay more, it may even be allowed that the 
lower classes are less apt to be swayed by considerations of 
personal interest than the higher orders ; but it is always 
more or less impossible for them to discern the best means 
of attaining the end, which they desire with sincerity. 
Long and patient observation, joined to a multitude of diffe¬ 
rent notions, is required to form a just estimate of the cha¬ 
racter of a single individual ; and can it be supposed that 
the vulgar have the power of succeeding in an inquiry which 
misleads the penetration of genius itself? The people has 
neither the time nor the means which are essential to the 
prosecution of an investigation of this kind ; its conclusions 
are hastily formed from a superficial inspection of the more 
prominent features of a question. Hence it often assents to 
the clamor of a mountebank, who knows the secret of stimu¬ 
lating its tastes ; while its truest friends frequently fail in 
their exertions. 

Moreover, the democracy is not only deficient in that 
soundness of judgment which is necessary to select men 
really deserving of its confidence, but it has neither the de¬ 
sire nor the inclination to find them out. It cannot be denied 
that democratic institutions have a very strong tendency to 
promote the feeling of envy in the human heart ; not so much 
because they afford to every one the means of rising to the 
level of any of his fellow-citizens, as because those means 
perpetually disappoint the persons who employ them. De¬ 
mocratic institutions awaken and foster a passion for equality 
which they-" can never entirely satisfy. This complete 
equality eludes the grasp of the people at the very moment 
when it thinks to hold it fast, and “ flies,” as Pascal says, 
with eternal flightthe people is excited in the pursuit of 
an advantage, which is the more precious because it is not 
sufficiently remote to be unknown, or sufficiently near to be 
enjoyed. The lower orders are agitated by the chance of 
success, they are irritated by its uncertainty ; and they pass 
from the enthusiasm of pursuit to the exhaustion of ill-suc¬ 
cess, and lastly to the acrimony of disappointment. What¬ 
ever transcends their own limits appears to be an obstacle to 
their desires, and there is no' kind of superiority, however 
iegitiraate it may be, which is not irksome in their sight. 


200 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


It has been supposed that the secret instinct, which leads 
the lower orders to remove their superiors as much as possi¬ 
ble from the direction of public affairs, is peculiar to France. 
This, however, is an error; the propensity to which I allude 
is not inherent in any particular nation, but in democratic 
institutions in general; and although it may have been 
heightened by peculiar political circumstances, it owes its 
origin to a higher cause. 

In the United States, the people is not disposed to hate the 
superior class of society } but it is not very favorably in¬ 
clined toward them, and it carefully excludes them from the 
exercise of authority. It does not entertain any dread of dis¬ 
tinguished talents, but it is rarely captivated by them } and it 
awards its approbation very sparingly to such as have risen 
without the popular support. 

While the natural propensities of democracy induce the 
people to reject the most distinguished citizens as its rulers, 
these individuals are no less apt to retire from a political 
career, in which it is almost impossible to retain their inde¬ 
pendence, or to advance without degrading themselves. 
This opinion has been very candidly set forth by Chancellor 
Kent, who says, in speaking with great eulogium of that 
part of the constitution which empowers the executive to 
nominate the judges: “ It is indeed probable that the men 
who are best fitted to discharge the duties of this high office 
would have too much reserve in their manners, and too much 
austerity in their principles, for them to be returned by the 
majority at an election where universal suffrage is adopted.” 
Such were the opinions which were printed without contra¬ 
diction in America in the year 1830. 

I hold it to be sufficiently demonstrated, that universal 
suffrage is by no means a guarantee of the wisdom of the 
popular choice; and that whatever its advantages may he, 
this is not one of them. 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


201 


CAUSES WHICH MAY PARTLY CORRECT THESE TENDENCIES OF 
THE DEMOCRACY. 

Contrary Effects produced on Peoples as well as on individuals by 
great Dangers.—Why so many distinguished Men stood at the Head 
of Affairs in America fifty Years ago.—Influence which the intelli¬ 
gence and the Manners of the People exercise upon its choice.—■ 
Example of New England.*—States of the Southwest—Influence of 
certain Laws upon the Choice of the People.—Election by an elected 
Body.—Its Effects upon the Composition of the Senate. 

When a state is threatened by serious dangers, the people 
frequently succeed in selecting the citizens who are the most 
able to save it. It has been observed that man rarely retains 
his customary level in presence" of very critical circum¬ 
stances ; he rises above, or he sinks below, his usual condi¬ 
tion, and the same thing occurs in nations at large. Extreme 
perils sometimes quench the energy of a people instead of 
stimulating it; they excite without directing its passions; 
and instead of clearing, they confuse its powers of perception. 
The Jews deluged the smoking ruins of their temples with 
the carnage of the remnant of their host. But it is more 
common, both in the case of nations and in that of individuals, 
to find extraordinary virtues arising from the very imminence 
of the danger. Great characters are then thrown into relief, 
as the edifices which are concealed by the gloom of night, 
are illuminated by the glare of a conflagration. At those 
dangerous times genius no longer abstains from presenting 
itself in the arena ; and the people, alarmed by the perils of 
its situation, buries its envious passions in a short oblivion. 
Great names may then be drawn from the urn of an elec¬ 
tion. 

I have already observed that the American statesmen of 
the present day are very inferior to those who stood at the 
head of affairs fifty years ago. This is as much a conse¬ 
quence of the circumstances, as of the laws of the country. 
When America was struggling in the high cause of indepen¬ 
dence to throw off' the yoke of another country, and when it 
was about to usher a new nation into the world, the spirits of 
its inhabitants were roused to the height which their great 
efforts required. In this general excitement, the most distin¬ 
guished men were ready to forestall the wants of the commu¬ 
nity, and the people clung to them for support, and placed 
them at its head. But events of this magnitude are rare; 
and it is from an inspection of the ordinary course of affairs 
that our judgment must be formed. 









202 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


If passing occurrences sometimes act as checks upon the 
passions of democracy, the intelligence and the manners of 
the community exercise an influence which is not less pow¬ 
erful, and far more permanent. This is extremely percepti¬ 
ble in the United States. 

In New England the education and the liberties of the 
communities were engendered by the moral and religious 
principles of their founders. Where society has acquired a 
sufficient degree of stability to enable it to hold certain max¬ 
ims and to retain fixed habits, the lower orders are accustomed 
to respect intellectual superiority, and to submit to it without 
complaint, although they set at naught all those privileges 
which wealth and birth have introduced among mankind. 
The democracy in New England consequently makes a more 
judicious choice than it does elsewhere. 

But as we descend toward the south, to those states in 
which the constitution of society is more modern and less 
strong, where instruction is less general, and where the prin¬ 
ciples of morality, of religion, and of liberty, are less happily 
combined, we perceive that the talents and the virtues of 
those who are in authority become more and more rare. 

Lastly, when we arrive at the new southwestern states, in 
which the constitution of society dates but from yesterday, 
and presents an agglomeration of adventurers and speculators, 
we are amazed at the persons who are invested with public 
authority, and we are led to ask by what force, independent 
of the legislation and of the men who direct it, the state can 
be protected, and society be made to flourish. 

There are certain laws of a democratic nature which con¬ 
tribute, nevertheless, to correct, in-some measure, the danger¬ 
ous tendencies of democracy. On entering the house of 
representatives at Washington, one is struck by the vulgar 
demeanor of that great assembly. The eye frequently does 
not discover a man of celebrity within its walls. Its mem¬ 
bers are almost all obscure individuals, whose names present 
no associations to the mind : they are mostly village-lawyers, 
men in trade, or even persons belonging to the lower classes 
of society. In a country in which education is very general, 
it is said that the representatives of the people do not always 
know how to write correctly. 

At a few yards distance from this spot is the door of the 
senate, which contains within a small space a large propor¬ 
tion of the celebrated men of America. Scarcely an indi¬ 
vidual is to be perceived in it who does not recall the idea of 
an active and illustrious career : the senate is composed of 


DEMOtRACY IN AMERICA. 


^03 


^loquenl advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates, 
and statesmen of note, whose language would at all times do 
honor to the most remarkable parliamentary debates of Eu¬ 
rope. 

What then is the cause of this strange contrast, and why 
are the most able citizens to be found in one assembly rather 
than in the other ? Why is the former body remarkable for 
its vulgarity and its poverty of talent, while the latter seems 
to enjoy a monopoly of intelligence and of sound judgment ? 
Both of these assemblies emanate from the people; both of 
them are chosen by universal suffrage ; and no voice has 
hitherto been heard to assert, in America, that the senate is 
hostile to the interests of the people. From what cause, then, 
does so startling a difference arise ? The only reason which 
appears to me adequately to account for it is, that the house 
of representatives is elected by the populace directly, and 
that of the senate is elected by elected bodies. The whole 
body of the citizens names the legislature of each state, and 
the federal constitution converts these legislatures into so many 
electoral bodies, which return the members of the senate. 
The senators are elected by an indirect application of univer¬ 
sal suffrage ; for the legislatures which name them are not 
aristocratic or privileged bodies which exercise the electoral 
franchise in their own right; but they are chosen by the 
totality of the citizens; they are generally elected every 
year, and new members may constantly be chosen, who will 
employ their electoral rights in conformity with the wishes of 
the public. But this transmission of the popular authority 
through an assembly of chosen men, operates an important 
change in it, by refining its discretion and improving the forms 
which it adopts. Men who are chosen in this manner, accu¬ 
rately represent the majority of the nation which governs 
tliem ; but they represent the elevated thoughts which are 
current in the community, the generous propensities which 
prompt its nobler actions, rather than the petty passions which 
disturb, or the vices whicli disgrace it. 

The time may be already anticipated at which the Ameri¬ 
can republics Avill be obliged to introduce the plan of election 
by an elected body more frequently into their system of repre¬ 
sentation, or they will incur no small risk of perishing misera¬ 
bly among the shoals of democracy. 

And here I have no scruple in confessing that I look upon 
this peculiar system of election as the only means of bringing 
the exercise of political power to the level of all classes of 
the people, d’hosc thinkers who regard this institution as 


204 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


the exclusive weapon of a party, and those who fear, ott the 
other hand, to make use of it, seem to me to fall into as great 
an error in the one case as in the other. 


INFLUENCE WHICH THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY HAS EXERCISER 
ON THE LAWS RELATING TO ELECTIONS. 

When Elections are rare, they expose the State to a violent Crisis.— 
When they are frequent, they keep up a degree of feverish Excite¬ 
ment.—The Americans have preferred the second of these two* 
Evils.—Mutability of the Laws,—Opinions of Hamilton and Jeffer¬ 
son on this Subject. 

, ; 

When elections recur at long intervals, the state is exposed 
to violent agitation every time they take place. Parties ex¬ 
ert themselves to the utmost in order to gain a prize which is- 
so rarely within their reach; and as the evil is almost ir¬ 
remediable for the candidates who fail, the consequence of 
their disappointed ambition may prove most disastrous: if, on 
the other hand, the legal struggle can be repeated within a 
short space of time, the defeated parties take patience. 

When elections occur frequently, this recurrence keeps 
society in a perpetual state of feverish excitement, and im¬ 
parts a continual instability to public affairs. 

Thus, on the one hand,--the state is exposed to the perils 
of a revolution, on the other, to perpetual mutability ; the 
former system threatens the very existence of the govern¬ 
ment, the latter is an obstacle to all steady and consistent 
policy. The Americans have preferred the second of these 
evils to the first; but they were led to this conclusion by their 
instinct much more than by their reason; for a taste for va¬ 
riety is one of tlie characteristic passions of democracy. An 
extraordinary mutability has, by this means, been introduced 
mto their legislation. 

Many of the Americans consider the instability of their 
laws as a necessary consequence of a system whose general 
results are beneficial. But no one in the United States affects 
to deny the fact of this instability, or to contend that it is not 
a great eviL 

Hamilton, after having demonstrated the utility of a power 
which might prevent, or which might at least impede, the pro¬ 
mulgation of bad laws, adds: “ ft may perhaps be said that 
the power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing 
good ones, and may be used to the one purpose as well as to* 



DEMOCRACY IN AMRRIC'A. 


5209 

the other. But this objection will have but little weight with 
those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of that incon¬ 
stancy and mutability in the laws which form the greatest 
blemish in the character and genius of oUr government.— 
(Federalist, No. 73.) 

And again, in No/ 62 of the same work, he observes} 
“ The facility and excess of law-making seem to be the dis¬ 
eases to which our governments are most liable.******* The 
mischievous effects of the mutability in the public^ councils 
arising from a rapid succession of new members, would fill 
a volume ,‘ every new election in the states is found to change 
one half of the representatives. From this change of men 
must proceed a change of opinions and of measures which 
forfeits the respect and confidence of nations, poisons the 
blessings 'of liberty itself, and diminishes the attachment and 
reverence of the people toward a political system which be¬ 
trays so many marks of infirmity.” 

Jefferson himself, the greatest democrat whom the democra¬ 
cy of America has as yet produced, pointed out the same 
evils. 

“ The instability of our laws,” he said in a letter to Madi¬ 
son, “ is really a very serious inconvenience. I think we 
ought to have obviated it by deciding that a whole year should 
always be allowed to elapse between the bringing in of a bill 
and the final passing of it. It should afterward be discussed 
and put to the vote without the possibility of making any al¬ 
teration in it; and if the circumstances of the case required 
a more speedy decision, the question should not be decided 
by a simple majority, but by a majority of at least two thirds 
of both houses/’ 


PUBLIC OFFICERS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE DEMOCRACY 
OF AMERICA. 


Simple Exterior of the American public Officers.—‘No official Cos¬ 
tume.—All public Officers are remunerated.—Political Consequences 
of this System.—No public Career exists in America.—Result of 
this. 

Public officers in the United States are commingled with the 
crowd of citizens; they have neither palaces, nor guards, 
nor ceremonial costumes. This simple exterior of the per¬ 
sons in authority is connected, not only with the peculiarities 
of the American character, but with the fundamental princi- 
19 






206 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


pies of that society. In the estimation of the democracy, a 
government is not a benefit, but a necessary evil. A certain 
degree of power must be granted to public officers, for they 
would be of no use without it. But the ostensible semblance 
of authority is by no means indispensable to the conduct of 
affairs; and it is needlessly offensive to the susceptibility of 
the public. The public officers themselves are well aware 
that they only enjoy the superiority over their fellow-citizens, 
which they derive from their authority, upon condition of 
putting themselves on a level with the whole community by 
their manners. A public officer in the United States is uni¬ 
formly civil, accessible to all the world, attentive to all re¬ 
quests, and obliging in all his replies. I was pleased by 
these characteristics of a democratic government; and I was 
struck by the manly independence of the citizens, who respect 
the office more than the officer, and who are less attached 
to the emblems of authority than to the man who bears 
them. 

I am inclined to believe that the influence which costumes 
really exercise, in an age like that in which we live, has 
been a good deal exaggerated. I never perceived that a pub¬ 
lic officer in America was the less respected while he was in 
the discharge of his duties because his own merit was set 
off by no adventitious signs. On the other hand, it is very 
doubtful whether a peculiar dress contributes to the respect 
which public characters ought to have for their own position, 
at least when they are not otherwise inclined to respect it. 
When a magistrate (and in France such instances are not 
rare), indulges his trivial wit at the expense of a prisoner, or 
derides a predicament in which a culprit is placed, it would 
be well to deprive him of his robes of office, to see whether 
he would recall some portion of the natural dignity of man¬ 
kind when he is reduced to the apparel of a private citizen. 

A democracy may, however, allow a certain show of jna- 
gisterial pomp, and clothe its officers in silks and gold, witli- 
out seriously compromising its principles. Privileges of this 
kind are transitory ; they belong to the place, and are dis¬ 
tinct from the individual: but if public officers are not uni¬ 
formly remunerated by the state, the public charges must l)c 
intrusted to men of opulence and independence, who consti¬ 
tute the basis of an aristocracy ; and if the people still re¬ 
tains its right of election, that election can only be made 
from a certain class of citizens. 

When a democratic republic renders offices which had for¬ 
merly been remunerated, gratuitous, it may safely be be- 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


207 


iieved that that state is advancing to monarchical institutions; 
and when a monarchy begins to remunerate such officers as 
had hitherto been unpaid, it is a sure sign that it is approach¬ 
ing toward a despotic or a republican form of government. 
The substitution of paid for unpaid functionaries is of itself, 
in my opinion, sufficient to constitute a serious revolution. 

I look upon the entire absence of gratuitous functionaries 
in America as one of the most proUiinent signs of the abso¬ 
lute dominion which democracy exercises in that country. 
All public services, of whatsoever nature they may be, are 
paid ; so that every one has not merely a right, but also the 
means of performing them. Although, in democratic states, 
all the citizens are qualified to occupy stations in the govern¬ 
ment, all are not tempted to try for them. The number and 
the capacities of the candidates are more apt to restrict the 
choice of electors than the conditions of the candidateship. 

In nations in which the principle of election extends to 
every place in the state, no political career can, properly 
speaking, be said to exist. ^ Men are promoted as if by chance 
to the rank which they enjoy, and they are by no means sure 
of retaining it. The consequence is that in tranquil times 
public functions offer but few lures to ambition. ^In the 
United States the persons who engage in the perplexities of 
political life are individuals of very moderate pretensions. 
The pursuit of wealth generally diverts men of great talents 
and of great passions from the pursuit of power ; and it very 
frequently happens that a man does not undertake to direct 
the fortune of the state until he has discovered his incompe¬ 
tence to conduct his own affairs. The vast number of very 
ordinary men who occupy public stations is quite as attributa¬ 
ble to these causes as to the bad choice of the democracy. 
In the United States, I am not sure that the people would re¬ 
turn the men of superior abilities who might solicit its sup¬ 
port, but it is certain that men of this description do not come 
forward. 


S08 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


ARBITRARY POWER OP MAGISTRATES* UNDER THE RULE OF 
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. 

For,what Reason the arbitrary Power of Magistrates is greater in abso¬ 
lute Monarchies and in democratic Republics that it is in limited 

Monarchies.—Arbitrary Power of the Magistrates in New England. 

In two dffferent kinds of government the magistrates exercise 
a considerable degree of arbitrary power ; namely, under the 
absolute government of a single individual, and under that of 
a democracy. 

This identical result proceeds from causes which are nearly 
analogous. 

In despotic states the fortune of no citizen is secure; and 
public officers are not more safe than private individuals. 
The sovereign, who has under his control the lives, the 
property, and sometimes the honor of the men whom he 
employs, does not scruple to allow them a great latitude of 
action, because he is convinced that they will not use it to his 
prejudice. In despotic states the sovereign is so attached to 
the exercise of his power, that he dislikes the constraint even 
of his own regulations; and he is well pleased that his agents 
should follow a somewhat fortuitous line of conduct, provided 
he be certain that their actions will never counteract his 
desires. 

^ In democracies, as the majority has every year the right 
of depriving the officers whom it has appointed of their power, 
it has no reason to fear abuse of their authority. As the 
people is always able to signify its wishes to those who 
conduct the governmeUt, it prefers leaving them to make their 
own exertions, to prescribing an invariable rule of conduct 
which would at once fetter their activity and the popular 
authority. 

It may even be observed, on attentive consideration, that 
under the rule of a democracy the arbitrary pow'er of the 
magistrate must be still greater than in despotic states. In 
the latter, the sovereign has the power of punishing all the 
faults with which he becomes acquainted, but it would be 
vain for him to hope to become acquainted with all those 
which are committed. In the former the sovereign power is 
not only supreme, but it is universally present. The Ameri- 

* I here use the word magistrates in the widest sense in which it 
can be taken ; I apply it to all the officers to whom the ejiecution of the 
laws is intrusted. 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


209 


can functionaries are, in point of fact, much more independent 
in the sphere of action which the law traces out for them, than 
any public officer in Europe. Very frequently the object 
which they are to accomplish is simply pointed out to them, 
and the choice of the means is left to their own discretion. 

In New England, for instance, the selectmen of each town- 
ship are bound to draw up the list of persons who are to serve 
on the jury ; the only rule which is laid down to guide them 
in their choice is that they are to select citizens possessing the 
elective franchise and enjoying a fair reputation.* In France 
the lives and liberties of the subjects would be thought to be 
in danger, if a public officer of any kind was intrusted with 
so formidable a right. In New England, the same magis¬ 
trates are empowered to post the names of habitual drunkards 
in public houses, and to prohibit the inhabitants of a town 
from supplying them with liquor.-j- A censorial power of 
this excessive kind would be revolting to the population of the 
most absolute monarchies; here, however, it is submitted to 
without difficulty. 

Nowhere has so much been left by the law to the arbitrary 
determination of the magistrates as in democratic republics, 
because this arbitrary power is unattended by any alarming 
consequences. It may even be asserted that the freedom of 
the magistrate increases as the elective franchise is extended, 
and as the duration of the time of office is shortened. Hence 
arises the great difficulty which attends the conversion of a 
democratic republic into a monarchy. The magistrate ceases 
to be elective, but he retains the rights and the habits of an 
elected officer, which lead directly to despotism. 

It is only in limited monarchies that the law which prescribes 
the sphere in which public officers are to act, superintends 
all their measures. The cause of this may be easily detected. 
In limited monarchies the power is divided between the king 
and the people, both of whom are interested in the stability of 
the magistrate. The king does not venture to place the 
public officers under the control of the people, lest they should 
be,tempted to betray his interests; on the other hand, the 
people fears lest the magistrates should serve to oppress the 
liberties of the country, if they were entirely dependent upon 
the crown : they cannot therefore be said to depend on either 

* See the act 27th February, 1813. General Collection of the Laws 
of Massachusetts, vol. ii., p. 331. It should be added that the 'urors 
are afterward drawn from these lists by lot. 

t See the act of 28th February, 1787. General Collection of tlio 
Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i., p. 302. 

19* 


210 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


the one or the other. The same cause which induces the 
king and the people to render public officers independent, 
suggests the necessity of such securities as may prevent their 
independence from encroaching upon the authority of the 
former and the liberties of the latter. They consequently 
agree as to the necessity of restricting the functionary to a 
line of conduct laid down beforehand, and they are interested 
in confining him by certain regulations which he cannot 
evade. 

[The observations respecting the arbitrary powers of magistrates are 
practically among the most erroneous in the work. The author seems 
to have confounded the idea of magistrates being independent with 
their being arbitrary. Yet he had just before spoken of their depend- 
ance on popular election as a reason why there was no apprehension 
of the abuse of their authority. The independence, then, to which he 
alludes must be an immunity from responsibility to any other depart¬ 
ment. But it is a fundamental principle of our system, that all officers 
are liable to criminal prosecution “ whenever they act partially or op¬ 
pressively from a malicious or corrupt motive.” See 15 Wendell’s 
Reports, 27S. That our magistrates are independent when they do not 
act partially or oppressively is very true, and, it is to be hoped, is 
equally true in every form of government. There would seem, there¬ 
fore, not to be such a degree of independence as necessarily to produce 
arbitrariness. The author supposes that magistrates are more arbitrary 
in a despotism and in a democracy than in a limited monarchy. And 
yet, the limits of independence and of responsibility existing in the 
United States are borrowed from and identical with those established 
in England—the most prominent instance of a limited monarchy. See 
the authorities referred to in the case in Wendell’s Reports, before 
quoted. Discretion in the execution of various ministerial duties, and 
in the awarding of punishment by judicial officers, is indispensable in 
every system of government, from the utter impossibility of “ laying 
down beforehand a line of conduct” (as the author expresses it) in 
such cases. The very instances of discretionary power to which he 
refers, and which he considers arbitrary, exist in England. There, 
the persons from whom juries are to be formed for the trial of causes, 
civil and criminal, are selected by the sheriffs, who are appointed by 
the crown—a power, certainly more liable to abuse in their hands, than 
in those of selectmen or other town-officers, chosen annually by the 
people. The other power referred to, that of posting the names of 
habitual drunkards, and forbidding their being supplied with liquor, is 
but a reiteration of the principles contained in the English statute of 
32 Geo. III., ch. 45, respecting idle and disorderly persons. Indeed, 
it may be said with great confidence, that there is not an instance of 
discretionary power being vested in American magistrates which does 
not find its prototype in the English laws. The whole argument of 
the author on this point, therefore, would seem to fail .—American 
Editor.1 


DEMOCRACY' IN AMERICA. 


211 


INSTABILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATION IN THE UNITED STATES. 

In America the public Acts of a Community frequently leave fewer 
Traces than the Occurrences of a Family.—Newspapers the only 
historical Remains.—Instability of the Administration prejudicial to 
the Art of Government. 

The authority which public men possess in America is so 
brief, and they are so soon commingled with the ever-chang¬ 
ing population of the country, that the acts of a community 
frequently leave fewer traces than the occurrences of a pri¬ 
vate family. The public administration is, so to speak, oral 
and traditionary. But little is committed to writing, and that 
little is wafted away for ever, like the leaves of the sibyl, by 
the smallest breeze. 

The only historical remains in the United States are the 
newspapers; but if a number be wanting, the chain of time 
is broken, and the present is severed from the past. I am 
convinced that in fifty years it will be more difficult to collect 
authentic documents concerning the social condition of the 
Americans at the present day, than it is to find remains of the 
administration of France during the middle ages; and if the 
United States were ever invaded by barbarians, it would be 
necessary to have recourse to the history of other nations, in 
order to learn anything of the people which now inhabits them. 

The instability of the administration has penetrated into the 
habits of the people : it even appears to suit the general taste, 
and no one cares for what occurred before his time. No 
methodical system is pursued ; no archives are formed; and 
no documents are brought together when it would be very 
easy to do so. Where they exist little store is set upon them ; 
and I have among my papers several original public docu¬ 
ments which were given to me in answer to some of my 
inquiries. In America society seems to live from hand to 
mouth, like an army in the field. Nevertheless, the art of 
administration may undoubtedly be ranked as a science, and 
no sciences can be improved, if the discoveries and observa¬ 
tions of successive generations are not connected together in 
the order in which they occur. One man, in the short space 
of his life, remarks a fact; another conceives an idea; the 
former invents a means of execution, the latter reduces a 
truth to a fixed proposition ; and mankind gathers the fruits 
of individual experience upon its way, and gradually forms 
the sciences. But the persons who conduct the administration 
in America can seldom afford any instruction to each other; 


212 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


and when they assume the direction of society, they simply 
possess those attainments which are most widely disseminated 
in the community, and no experience peculiar to themselves. 
Democracy, carried to its farthest limits, is therefore preju¬ 
dicial to the art of government; and for this reason it is bet¬ 
ter adapted to a people already versed in the conduct of an 
administration, than to a nation which is uninitiated in public 
affairs. 

This remark, indeed, is not exclusively applicable to the 
science of administration. Although a democratic govern¬ 
ment is founded upon a very simple and natural principle, it 
always presupposes the existence of a high degree of culture 
and enlightenment in society.* At the first glance it may 
be imagined to belong to the earliest ages of the world ; but 
maturer observation will convince us that it could only come 
last in the succession of human history. 

[These remarks upon the “ instability of administration” in Ame¬ 
rica, are partly correct, but partly erroneous. It is certainly true that 
our public men are not educated to the business of government; even 
our diplomatists are selected with very little reference to their experi¬ 
ence in that department. But the universal attention that is paid by 
the intelligent, to the measures of government and to the discussions to 
which they give rise, is in itself no slight preparation for the ordinary 
duties of legislation. And, indeed, this the author subsequently seems 
to admit. As to there being “ no archives formed ” of public docu¬ 
ments, the author is certainly mistaken. The journals of congress, 
the journals of state legislatures, the public documents transmitted to , 
and originating in those bodies, are carefully preserved and dissemi¬ 
nated through the nation: and they furnish in themselves the materi¬ 
als of a full and accurate history. Our great defect, doubtless, is in the 
want of statistical information. Excepting the annual reports of the 
state of our commerce, made by the secretary of the treasury, under a 
law, and excepting the census which is taken every ten years under the 
authority of congress, and those taken by the states, we have no offi¬ 
cial statistics. It is supposed that the author had this species of in¬ 
formation in his mind when he alluded to the general deficiency of 
our archives .—American Editor.'\ 

* It is needless to observe, that I speak here of the democratic form 
of government as applied to a people, not merely to a tribe. 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


213 


CHARGES LEVIED BY THE STATE UNDER THE RULE OF THE 
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. 

In all Communities Citizens divisible into three Classes.—Habits of 
each of these Classes in the Direction of public Finances.—Why 
public Expenditures must tend to increase when the People go¬ 
verns.—What renders the Extravagance of a Democracy less to be 
feared in America.—Public Expenditure under a Democracy. 

Before we can affirm whether a democratic form of govern¬ 
ment is economical or not, we must establish a suitable 
standard of coniparison. The question would be one of easy 
solution if we were to attempt to draw a parallel between a 
democratic republic and an absolute monarchy. The pub¬ 
lic expenditure would be found to be more considerable under 
the former than under the latter; such is the case with all 
free states compared to those which are not so. It is certain 
that despotism ruins individuals by preventing them from pro¬ 
ducing wealth, much more than by depriving them of the 
wealth they have produced : it dries up the source of riches, 
while it usually respects acquired property. Freedom, on 
the contrary, engenders far more benefits than it destroys ; 
and the nations which are favored by free institutions, invari¬ 
ably find that their resources increase even more rapidly than 
their taxes. 

My present object is to compare free nations to each other; 
and to point out the influence pf democracy upon the finan¬ 
ces of a state. 

Communities, as well as organic bodies, are subject to cer¬ 
tain fixed rules in their formation which they cannot evade. 
They are composed of certain elements which are common to 
them at all times and under all circumstances. The people 
may always be mentally divided into three distinct classes. 
The first of these classes consists of the wealthy ; the second, 
of those who are in easy circumstances; and the third is 
composed of those who have little or no property, and wlio 
subsist more especially by the work which they perform for 
the two superior orders. The proportion of the individuals 
who are included in these three divisions may vary accord¬ 
ing to the condition of society ; but the divisions themselves 
can never be obliterated. 

It is evident that each of these classes will exercise an in¬ 
fluence, peculiar to its own propensities, upon the administra¬ 
tion of the finances of the state. If the first of the three ex¬ 
clusively possess the legislative power, it is probable that it 



214 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


will not be sparing of the public funds, because the taxes 
which are levied on a large fortune-only tend to diminish the 
sum of superfluous enjoyment, and are, in point of fact, but 
little felt. If the second class has the" power of making the 
laws, it will certainly not be lavish of taxes, because nothing 
is so onerous as a large impost which is levied upon a small 
income. The government of the middle classes appears to 
me to be the most economical, though perhaps not the most 
enlightened, and certainly not the most generous, of free gov¬ 
ernments. 

But let us now suppose that the legislative authority is 
vested in the lowest orders: there are two striking reasons 
which show that the tendency of the expenditure will be to 
increase, not to diminish. 

As the great majority of those who create the laws are 
possessed of no property upon which taxes can be imposed, 
all the money which is spent for the community appears to 
be spent to their advantage, at no cost of their own; and 
those who are possessed of some little property readily find 
means of regulating the taxes so that they are burthensome 
to the wealthy and profitable to the poor, although the’rich are 
unable to take the same advantage when they are in posses¬ 
sion of the government. 

I In countries in which the poor* should be exclusively 
invested with the power of making the laws, no great economy 
of public expenditure ought to be expected; that expenditure 
will always be considerable ; either because the taxes do not 
weigh upon those who levy them, or because they are levied 
in such a manner as not to weigh upon those classes. In 
other words, the government of the democracy is the only one 
under which the power which lays on taxes escapes the pay¬ 
ment of them. 

It may be objected (but the argument has no real weight) 
that the true interest of the people is indissolubly connected 
with that of the wealthier portion of the community, since it 
cannot but suffer by the severe measures to which it resorts. 
But is it not the true interest of kings to render their subjects 
happy; and the true interest of nobles to admit recruits into 
their order on suitable grounds ? If remote advantages had 
power to prevail over the passions and the exigencies of the 

* The word poor is used here, and throughout the remainder of this 
chapter, in a relative and not in an absolute sense. Poor men in Ame¬ 
rica would often appear rich in comparison with the poor of Europe : 
but they may with propriety be styled poor in comparison with their 
more affluent countrymen. 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


215 


moment, no such thing as a tyrannical sovereign or an exclu¬ 
sive aristocracy could ever exist. 

Again, it may be objected that the poor are never invested 
with the sole power of making the laws; but I reply, that 
wherever universal suffrage has been established, the major¬ 
ity of the community unquestionably exercises the legislative 
authority, and if it be proved that the poor always constitute 
the majority, it may be added, with perfect truth, that in the 
countries in which they possess the elective franchise, they 
possess the sole power of making laws. But it is certain that 
in all the nations of the world the greater number has always 
consisted of those persons who hold no property, or of those 
whose property is insufficient to exempt them from the ne¬ 
cessity of working in order to procure an easy subsistence. 
Universal suffrage does therefore in point of fact invest the 
poor with the government of society. 

The disastrous influence which popular authority may 
sometimes exercise upon the finances of a state, was very 
clearly seen in some of the democratic republics of antiquity, 
in which the public treasure was exhausted in order to relieve 
indigent citizens, or to supply the games and theatrical amuse¬ 
ments of the populace. It is true that the representative sys¬ 
tem was then very imperfectly known, and that, at the present 
time, the influence of popular passions is less felt in the con¬ 
duct of public affairs; but it may be believed that the dele¬ 
gate will in the end conform to the principles of his constitu¬ 
ents, and favor their propensities as much as their interests. 

The extravagance of democracy is, however, less to be 
dreaded in proportion as the people acquires a share of pro¬ 
perty, because on the one hand the contributions of the rich 
are then less needed, and on the other, it is more difficult to 
lay on taxes w'hich do not affect the interests of the lower 
classes. On this account universal suffrage would be less 
dangerous in France than in England, because in the latter 
country the property on which taxes may be levied is vested 
in fewer hands. America, where the great majority of the 
citizens is possessed of some fortune, is in a still more favor¬ 
able position than France. 

There are still farther causes*which may increase the sum 
of public expenditures in democratic countries. When the 
aristocracy governs, the individuals who conduct the affairs of 
state are exempted, by their own station in society, from every 
kind of privation: they are contented with their position ; 
power and renown are the objects for which they strive; and, 
as they are placed far above the obscurer throng of citizens. 



216 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


they do not always distinctly perceive how the wellbeing of 
the mass of the people ought to redound to their own honor. 
They are not, indeed, callous to the sufferings of the poor, but 
they cannot feel those miseries as acutely as if they were 
themselves partakers of them. Provided that the people ap¬ 
pear to submit to its lot, the rulers are satisfied and they 
demand nothing farther from the government. An aristocracy 
is more intent upon the means of maintaining its influence, 
than upon the means of improving its condition. 

When, on the contrary, the people is invested with the 
supreme authority, the perpetual sense of their own miseries 
impels the rulers of society to seek for perpetual meliorations. 
A thousand different objects are subjected to improvement; 
the most trivial details are sought out as susceptible of amend¬ 
ment ; and those changes which are accompanied with con¬ 
siderable expense, are more especially advocated, since the 
object is to render the condition of the poor more tolerable, 
who cannot pay for themselves. 

Moreover, all democratic communities are agitated by an 
ill-defined excitement, and by a kind of feverish impatience, 
that engenders a multitude of innovations, almo.st all of which 
are attended with expense. 

In monarchies and aristocracies, the natural taste which 
the rulers have for power and for renown, is stimulated by 
the promptings of ambition, and they are frequently incited 
by these temptations to very costly undertakings. In demo¬ 
cracies, where the rulers labor under privations, they can 
only be courted by such means as improve their wellbeing, 
and these improvements cannot take place without a sacrifice 
of money. When a people begins to reflect upon its situation, 
it discovers a multitude of wants, to which it had not before 
been subject, and to satisfy these exigencies, recourse must 
be had to the coffers of the state. Hence it arises, that the 
public charges increase in proportion as civilisation spreads, 
and that the imposts are augmented as knowledge pervades 
the community. 

The last cause which frequently renders a democratic 
government dearer than any other is, that a democracy does 
not always succeed in moderating its expenditure, because it 
does not understand the art of being economical. As the de¬ 
signs wliich it entertains are frequently changed, and the 
agents of those designs are more frequently removed, its un¬ 
dertakings are often ill-conducted or left unfinished : in the 
former case the state spends sums out of all proportion to tlie 
end which it proposes to accomplish ; in the second, the ex¬ 
pense itself is unprofitable. 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


217 


TENDENCIES OF THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY AS REGARDS THE 
SALARIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS. 


In Democracies those who establish high Salaries have no Chance of 
profiting by them.—Tendency of the American Democracy to in¬ 
crease the Salaries of subordinate Officers, and to lower those of the 
more important functionaries.—Reason of this.—Comparative State¬ 
ment of the Salaries of public Officers in the United States and in 
France. ^ 

There is a powerful reason which usually induces democra¬ 
cies to economise upon the salaries of public officers. As the 
number of citizens who dispense the remuneration is ex¬ 
tremely large in democratic countries, so the number of 
persons who can hope to be benefited by the receipt of it is 
comparatively small. In aristocratic countries, on the con¬ 
trary, the individuals who appoint high salaries, have almost 
always a vague hope of profiting by them. These appoint¬ 
ments may be looked upon as a capital which they create for 
their own use, or at least, as a resource for their children."* 
It must, however,^be allowed that a democratic state is 
most parsimonious toward its principal agents. In America the 
secondary officers are much better paid, and the dignitaries 
of the administration much worse than they are elsewhere. 

These opposite effects result from the same cause: the peo¬ 
ple fixes the salaries of the public officers in both cases; and 
the scale of remuneration is determined by the consideration 
of its own wants. It is held to be fair that the servants of 
the public should be placed in the same easy circumstances 
as the public-' itself ;* but when the question turns upon the 
salaries of the great officers of state, this rule fails, and chance 
alone can guide the popular decision. The poor have no 
adequate conceptions of the wants which the higher classes 
of society may feel. The sum which is scanty to the rich, 
appears enormous to the poor man, whose wants do not extend 
beyond the necessaries of life : and in his estimation the gov¬ 
ernor of a state, with his two or three hundred a year, is a 
very fortunate and enviable being.f If you undertake to 

* The easy circumstances in which secondary functionari^ are placed 
in the United States, result also from another cause, which is inde¬ 
pendent of the general tendencies of democracy ; every kind of private 
business is very lucrative, and the state would not be served at all if it 
did not pay its servants. The country is in the position of a commer¬ 
cial undertaking, which is obliged to sustain an expensive competition, 
notwithstanding its taste for economy. 

t The state of Ohio, which contains a million of inhabitants, gives 
its governor a salary of only $1,200 (260/.) a year. 

20 





218 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


convince him that the representative of a great people ought 
to be able to maintain some show of splendor in the eyes of 
foreign nations, he will perhaps assent to your meaning ; but 
when he reflects on his own humble dwelling, and on the 
hard-earned produce of his wearisome toil, he remembers all 
that he could do with a salary which you say is insufficient, 
and he is startled or almost frightened at the sight of such 
uncommon wealth. Besides, the secondary public officer is 
almost on a level with the people, while the others are raised 
above it. The former may therefore excite his interest, but 
the latter begins to arouse his envy. 

This is very clearly^seen in the United States, where the 
salaries seem to decrease as the authority of those who re¬ 
ceive them augments.* 

Under the rule of an aristocracy it frequently happens, on 
the contrary, that while the high officers are receiving mu¬ 
nificent salaries, the inferior ones have not more than enough 
to procure the necessaries of life. The reason of this fact is 
easily discoverable from causes very analogous to those to 
which I have just alluded. If a democracy is unable to con¬ 
ceive the pleasures of the rich, or to see them without envy, 
an aristocracy is slow to understand, or, to speak more cor¬ 
rectly, is unacquainted with the privations of the poor. The 
poor man is not (if we use the term aright) the fellow of the rich 
one ; but he is the being of another species. An aristocracy 
is therefore apt to care but little for the fate of its subordinate 


* To render this assertion perfectly evident, it will suffice to examine 
the scale of salaries of the agents of the federal government. I have 
added the salaries attached to the corresponding officers in France, to 
complete the comparison :— 


UNITED STATES. 


FRANCE. 


Treasury Department, 


Messenger . . 

, . $ 700 

150/. 

Clerk with lowest sal- 


ary . . . 

. . 1,000 

217 

Clerk with 

highest 


salary . . 

. . 1,600 

347 

Chief clerk . 

. . 2,000 

434 

Secretary of state . 6,000 

1,300 

The President 

. . 25,000 

5,400 


Minisikre des Finances. 
Huissier, 1,500 fr. ... 60/. 

Clerk with lowest salary, 

1,000 to 1,800 fr. . . 40 to 72 

Clerk with highest sal¬ 
ary, 3,200 to 3,600 fr. 128 to 144 
Secretaire-general, 20,000 fr. 800 
The minister, 80,000 fr. . 3,200 
The king, 12,000,000 fr. 480,000 


I have perhaps done wrong in selecting France as my standard of com¬ 
parison. In France the democratic tendencies of the nation exercise 
an ever-increasing influence upon the government, and the chambers 
show a disposition to raise the lowest salaries and to lower the princi¬ 
pal ones. Thus the minister of finance, who received 160,000 fr. un¬ 
der the empire, receives S0,0Q0 fr., in 1835; the directeurs-generaux 
of finance, who then received 50,000 fr,, now receive only 20,000 fr. 



DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


219 


agents: and their salaries are only raised when they refuse 
to perform their service for too scanty a remuneration. 

It is the parsimonious conduct of democracy toward its 
principal officers, which has countenanced a supposition of 
far more economical propensities than any which it really 
possesses. It is true that it scarcely allows the means of 
honorable subsistence to the individuals who conduct its 
affairs ; but enormous sums are lavished to meet the exigen¬ 
cies or fo facilitate the enjoyments of the people.* The 
money raised by taxation may be better employed, but it is 
not saved. In general, democracy gives largely to the com¬ 
munity, and very sparingly to those who govern it. The 
reverse is the case in the aristocratic countries, where the 
money of the state is expended to the profit of the persons 
who are at the head of affairs. 


DIFFICULTY OF DISTINGUISHING THE CAUSES WHICH CONTRIBUTE 
TO THE ECONOMY OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. 

We are liable to frequent errors in the research of those facts 
which exercise a serious influence upon the fate of mankind, 
since nothing is more difficult than to appreciate their real 
value. One people is naturally inconsistent and enthusiastic ; 
another is sober and calculating ; and these charaeteristics 
originate in their physical constitution, or in remote causes 
with which we are unacquainted. 

There are nations which are fond of parade and the bustle 
of festivity, and which do not regret the costly gaieties of an 
hour. Others, on the contrary, are attached to more retiring 
pleasures, and seenr almost ashamed of appearing to be 
pleased. In some countries the highest value is set upon the 
beauty of public edifices ; in others the productions of art are 
treated with indifference, and everything which is unproduc¬ 
tive is looked down upon with contempt. In some renown, in 
others money, is the ruling passion. 

Independently of the laws, all these causes concur to exer- 

* See the American Dudgets for the cost of indigent citizens and gra¬ 
tuitous instruction. In 1831, 50,000/. were spent in the state of New 
York for the maintenance of the poor; and at least 200,000/. were 
devoted to gratuitous instruction. (Williams’s New York Annual Re¬ 
gister, 1832, pp. 205, 243.) The state of New York contained only 
1,900,000 inhabitants in the year 1830; which is not more than double 
the amount of population in the department du Nord in France. 




220 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


cise a very powerful influence upon the conduct of the finances 
of the state. If the Americans never spend the money of the 
people in galas, it is not only because the imposition of taxes 
is under the control of the people, but because the people 
takes no delight in public rejoicings. If they repudiate all 
ornament from their architecture, and set no store on any but 
the more practical and homely advantages, it is not only 
because they live under democratic institutions, but because 
they are a commercial nation. The habits of private life are 
continued in public; and we ought carefully to distinguish 
that economy which depends upon their institutions, from 
that which is the natural result of their manners and customs. 


WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE OF THE UNITED STATES CAN BE 
COMPARED TO THAT OF FRANCE. 

Two Points to be established in order to estimate the Extent of the 
public Charges, viz.: the national Wealth, and the Rate of Taxation. 
The Wealth and the Charges of France not accurately known.—Why 
the Wealth and Charges of the Union cannot be accurately known. 
Researches of the Author with a View to discover the Amount of 
Taxation in Pennsylvania.—General Symptoms which may serve to 
indicate the Amount of the public Charges in a given Nation.—Result 
of this Investigation for the Union. 

Many attempts have recently been made in France to compare 
the public expenditure of that country with the expenditure 
of the United States; all these attempts have, however, been 
unattended by success; and a few words will suffice to show 
that they could not have had a satisfactory result. 

In order to estimate the amount of the public charges of a 
people, two preliminaries are indispensable ; it is necessary, 
in the first place, to know the wealth of that people ; and in 
the second, to learn what portion of that wealth is devoted to 
the expenditure of the state. To show the amount of taxation 
without showing the resources which are destined to meet the 
demand, is to undertake a futile labor ; for it is not the 
expenditure, but the relation of the expenditure to the revenue, 
wliich it is desirable to know. 

The same rate of taxation which may easily be supported 
by a wealthy contributor, will reduce a poor one to extreme 
misery. ^ The wealth of nations is composed of several distinct 
elements, of which population is the first, real property the 
second, and personal property the third. The first of 
these three elements may be discovered without difficulty. 



DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


221 


Among civilized nations it is easy to obtain an accurate census 
of the inhabitants; but the two others cannot be determined 
with so much facility. It is difficult to take an exact account 
of all the lands in a country which are under cultivation, 
with their natural or their acquired value ; and it is still more 
impossible to estimate the entire personal property which is 
at the disposal of the nation, and which eludes the strictest 
analysis by the diversity and number of shapes under which 
it may occur. And, indeed, we find that the most ancient 
civilized nations of Europe, including even those in which the 
administration is most central, have not succeeded, as yet, 
in determining the exact condition of their wealth. 

In America the attempt has never been made ; for how 
would such an investigation be possible in a country where 
society has not yet settled into habits of regularity and tran¬ 
quillity ; where the national government is not assisted by a 
multitude of agents whose exertions it can command, and 
direct to one sole end; and where statistics are not studied, 
because no one is able to collect the necessary documents, or 
can find time to peruse them ? Thus the primary elements 
of the calculations which have been made in France, cannot 
be obtained in the Union; the relative wealth of the two 
countries is unknown : the property of the former is not accu¬ 
rately determined, and no means exist of computing that of 
the latter. ' ’ 

I Consent, therefore, for the sake of the discussion, to aban¬ 
don this necessary term of the comparison, and I confine my¬ 
self to a computation of the actual amount of taxation, with¬ 
out investigating the relation which subsists between the 
taxation and the revenue. But the reader will perceive that 
my task has not been facilitated by the limits which I here 
lay down for my researches. 

It cannot be doubted that the central administration of 
France, assisted by all the public officers who are at its dis¬ 
posal, might determine with exactitude the amount of the 
direct and indirect taxes levied upon the citizens. But this 
investigation, which no private individual can undertake, has 
not hitherto been completed'by the French government, or, at 
least, its results have not been made public. We are ac¬ 
quainted with the sum total of the state ; we know the amount 
of the departmental expenditure; but the expenses of the 
communal divisions have not been computed, and the amount 
of the public expenses of France is unknown. 

If we now turn to America, we shall perceive that the diffi. 
cultles are multiplied and enhanced. The Union publishes 
20 * 


222 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


an exact return of the amount of its expenditure; the budgets 
of the four-and-twenty states furnish similar returns of their 
revenues; but the expenses incident to the affairs of the coun¬ 
ties and the townships are unknown.* 

The authority of the federal government cannot oblige the 
provincial governments to throw any light upon this point; 
and even if these governments were inclined to afford their 
simultaneous co-operation, it may be doubted whether they 
possess the means of procuring a satisfactory answer. Inde¬ 
pendently of the natural difficulties of the task, the political 
organization of the country would act as a hindrance to the 
success of their efforts. The county and town magistrates 
are not appointed by the authorities of the state, and they 
are not subjected to their control. It is therefore very allow¬ 
able to suppose, that if the state was desirous of obtaining the 
returns which we require, its designs would be counteracted 
by the neglect of those subordinate officers whom it would be 
obliged to employ.j* It is, in point of fact, useless to inquire 

* The Americans, as we have seen, have four separate budgets; the 
Union, the states, the counties, and the townships, having each seve¬ 
rally their own. During my stay in America I made every endeavor to 
discover the amount of the public expenditure in the townships and 
counties of the principal states of the Union, and I readily obtained the 
budget of the larger townships, but I found it quite impossible to pro¬ 
cure that of the smaller ones, I possess, however, some documents 
relating to county expenses, which, although incomplete, are still curi¬ 
ous. I have to thank Mr. Richards, mayor of Philadelphia, for the 
budgets of thirteen of the counties of Pennsylvania, viz.; Lebanon, 
Centre, Franklin, Fayette, Montgomery, Luzerne, Dauphin, Butler, 
Allegany, Columbia, Northampton, Northumberland, and Philadelphia, 
for the year 1830, Their population at that time consisted of 495,207 
inhabitants. On looking at the map of Pennsylvania, it will be seen 
that these thirteen counties are scattered in every direction, and so 
generally affected by the causes which usually influence the condition 
of a country, that they may easily be supposed to furnish a correct 
average of the financial state of the counties of Pennsylvania in gene¬ 
ral ; and thus, upon reckoning that the expenses of these counties 
amounted in the year 1830 to about 72,330/., or nearly 3s. for each 
inhabitant, and calculating that each of them contributed in the same 
year about 10s. 2</. toward the Union, and about 3s. to the state of 
Pennsylvania, it appears that they each contributed as their share of 
all the public expenses (except those of the townships), the sum of 
16s. 2d. This calculation is doubly incomplete, as it applies only to a 
single year and to one part of the public charges; but it has at least 
the merit of not being conjectural. 

t Those who have attempted to draw a comparison between the ex¬ 
penses of France and America, have at once perceived that no such 
comparison could be drawn between the total expenditures of the two 
countries ; but they have endeavored to contrast detached portions of 
this expenditure. It may readily be shown^ that this second system 
is not at all less defective than the first. 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


223 


what the Americans might do to forward this inquiry, since 
it is certain that they have hitherto done nothing at all. There 
does not exist a single individual at the present day, in Ame¬ 
rica or in Europe, who can inform us what each citizen of 
the Union annually contributes to the public charges of the 
nation,* 


If I attempt to compare the French budget with the budget of the 
Union, it must be remembered that the latter embraces much fewer 
objects than the central government of the former country, and that 
the expenditure must consequently be much smaller. If I contrast the 
budgets of the departments to those of the states which constitute the 
Union, it must be observed, that as the power and control exercised by 
the states is much greater than that which is exercised by the depart¬ 
ments, their expenditure is also more considerable. As for the budgets 
of the counties, nothing of the kind occurs in the French system of 
finance ; and it is, again, doubtful whether the corresponding expenses 
should be referred to the budget of the state or to those of the muni¬ 
cipal divisions. 

Municipal expenses exist in both countries, but they are not always 
analogous. In America the townships discharge a vainety of offices 
which are reserved in France to the departments or the state. It may, 
moreover, be asked, what is to be understood by the municipal eX; 
penses of America. The organization of the municipal bodies or town¬ 
ships differs in the several states: Are we to be guided by what occurs 
in New England or in Georgia, in Pennsylvania or the state of Illinois ? 

A kind of analogy may very readily be perceived between certain 
budgets in the two countries ; but as the elements of which they are 
composed always differ more or less, no fair comparison can be insti¬ 
tuted between them. 

* Even if we knew the exact pecuniary contributions of every 
French and American citizen to the coffers of the state, we should only 
come at a portion of the truth. Governments not only demand sup¬ 
plies of money, but they call for personal services, which may be looked 
upon as equivalent to a given sum. When a state raises an army, be¬ 
side the pay of the troops which is furnished by the entire nation, each 
soldier must give up his time, the value of which depends on the use 
he might make of it if he were not in the service. The same remark 
applies to the militia : the citizen who is in the militia devotes a cer¬ 
tain portion of valuable time to the maintenance of the public peace, 
and he does in reality surrender to the state those earnings which he 
is prevented from gaining. Many other instances might be cited in 
addition to these. The governments of France and America both levy 
taxes of this kind, which weigh upon the citizens ; but who can esti¬ 
mate with accuracy their relative amount in the two countries ? 

This, however, is not the last of the difficulties which prevent us 
from comparing the expenditure of the Union with that of France. 
The French government contracts certain obligations which do not 
exist in America, and vice versa. The French government pays the 
clergy ; in America, the voluntary principle prevails. In America, 
there is a legal provision for the poor ; in France they are abandoned 
to the charity of the public. The French public officers are paid by a 
fixed salary : in America they are allowed certain perquisites. In 
France, contributions in kind take place on very few roads; in Ame¬ 
rica upon almost all the thoroughfares: in the former country the 


224 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


Hence we must conclude, that it is no less difficult to com¬ 
pare the social expenditure, than it is to estimate the relative 
wealth of France and of America. I will even add, that it 
would be dangerous to attempt this comparison ; for when 
statistics are not founded upon computations which are strictly 
accurate, they mislead instead of guiding aright. The mind 
is easily imposed upon by the false affectation of exactitude, 
which prevails even in the mis-statements of the science, and 
adopts with confidence the errors which are apparelled in the 
forms of mathematical truth. 

We abandon, therefore, our numerical investigation, with 
the hope of meeting with data of another kind. In the ab¬ 
sence of positive documents, we may form an opinion as to 
the proportion which the taxation of a people bears to its real 
prosperity, by observing whether its external appearance is 
flourishing ; whether, after having discharged the calls of the 
state, the poor man retains the means of subsistence, and the 
rich the means of enjoyment; and whether both classes are 
contented with their position, seeking however to meliorate it 
by perpetual exertions, so that industry is never in want of 
capital, nor capital unemployed by industry. The observer 
who draws his inferences from these signs will, undoubtedly, 
be led to the conclusion, that the American of the United 
States contributes a much smaller portion of his income to the 
state than the citizen of France. Nor, indeed, can the result 
be otherwise. 

A portion of the French debt is the consequence of two suc¬ 
cessive invasions; and the Union has no similar calamity to 
fear. A nation placed upon the continent of Europe is 
obliged to maintain a large standing army ; the isolated posi¬ 
tion of the Union enables it to have only 6,000 soldiers. 
The French have a fleet of 300 sail ; the Americans have 
52 vessels.* How, then, can the inhabitant of the Union be 
called upon to contribute as largely as the inhabitant of 
France ? No parallel can be drawn between the finances of 
two countries so differently situated. 

It is by examining what actually takes place in the Union, 
and not by comparing the Union with France, that we may 

roads are free to all travellers: in the latter turnpikes abound. All 
these differences in manner in which contributions are levied in the 
two countries, enhance the difficulty of comparing their expenditure ; 
for there are certain expenses which the citizens would not be sub¬ 
jected to, or which would at any rate be much less considerable, if the 
state did not take upon itself to act in the name of the public. 

* See the details in the budget of the French minister of marine; 
and for America, the National Calendar of 1833, p. 228. 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


225 


discover whether the American government is really econo¬ 
mical. On casting my eyes over the different republics which 
form the confederation, 1 perceive that their governments lack 
perseverance in their undertakings, and that they exercise no 
steady control over the men whom they employ. Whence I 
naturally infer, that they must often spend the money of the 
people ^o no purpose, or consume more of it than is really 
necessary to their undertakings. Great efforts are made, in 
accordance with the- democratic origin of society, to satisfy 
the exigencies of the lower orders, to open the career of power 
to their endeavors, and to diffuse knowledge and comfort 
among them. The poor are maintained, immense sums are 
annually devoted to public instruction, all services whatso¬ 
ever are remunerated, and the most subordinate agents are 
liberally paid. If this kind of government appears to me to 
be useful and rational, I am nevertheless constrained to admit 
that it is expensive. 

Wherever the poor direct public affairs and dispose of the 
national resources, it appears certain, that as they profit by 
the expenditure of the state, they are apt to augment that ex¬ 
penditure. " ^ 

I conclude therefore, without having recourse to inaccurate 
computations, and without hazarding a comparison which 
might prove incorrect, that the democratic government of the 
Americans is not a cheap government, as is sometimes as¬ 
serted ; and I have no hesitation in predicting, that if the peo¬ 
ple of the United States is ever involved in serious difficulties, 
its taxation will speedily be increased to the rate of that which 
prevails in the greater part of the aristocracies and the mo¬ 
narchies of Europe. ’ . ' 


CORRUPTION AND VICES OF THE RULERS IN A DEMOCRACY, AND 
CONSEQUENT EFFECTS UPON PUBLIC MORALITY. 


In Aristocracies Rulers sometimes endeavor to corrupt the People.—In 
Democracies Rulers frequently show themselves to be corrupt.—In 
the former their Vices are directly prejudicial to the Morality of the 
People.—In the latter their indirect Influence is still more per¬ 
nicious, 

A DISTINCTION must be made, when the aristocratic and the 
democratic principles mutually inveigh against each other, 
as tending to facilitate corruption. In aristocratic govern¬ 
ments the individuals who are placed at the head of affairs 



2-26 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


are rich men, who are solely desirous of power. In democra* 
cies statesmen are poor, and they have their fortunes to make. 
The consequence is, that in aristocratic states the rulers are 
rarely accessible to corruption, and have very little craving 
for money; while the reverse is the case in democratic 
nations. 

But in aristocracies, as those who are desirous of arriving 
at the head of affairs are possessed of considerable wealth, 
and as the number of persons by whose assistance they may 
rise is comparatively small, the government is, if I may use 
the expression, put up to a sort of auction. In democracies, 
on the contrary, those who are covetous of power are very 
seldom wealthy, and the number of citizens who confer that 
power is extremely great. Perhaps in democracies the num- 
her of men who might be bought is by no means smaller, but 
buyers are rarely to be met with; and, besides, it would be 
necessary to buy so many persons at once, that the attempt is 
rendered nugatory. 

Many of the men who have been in the administration in 
France during the last forty years, have been accused of 
making their fortunes at the expense of the state or of its 
allies ; a reproach which was rarely addressed to the public 
characters of the ancient monarchy. But in France the 
practice of bribing electors is almost unknown, while it is no¬ 
toriously and publicly carried on in England. In the United 
States I never heard a man accused of spending his wealth in 
corrupting the populace; but I have often heard the probity 
of public officers questioned; still more frequently have I 
heard their success attributed to low intrigues and immoral 
practices. 

If, then, the men who conduct the government of an aristo¬ 
cracy sometimes endeavor to corrupt the people, the heads of 
a democracy are themselves corrupt. In the former case the 
morality of the people is directly assailed ; in the latter, an 
indirect influence is exercised upon the people, which is still 
mor3 to be dreaded. 

As the rulers of democratic nations are almost always ex¬ 
posed to the suspicion of dishonorable conduct, they in some 
measure lend the authority of the government to the base 
practices of which they are accused. They thus afford an 
example which must prove discouraging to the struggles of 
virtuous independence, and must foster the secret calcula¬ 
tions of a vicious ambition. If it be asserted that evil pas¬ 
sions are displayed in all ranks of society ; that they ascend 
the throne by hereditary right; and that despicable charac- 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


227 


lers are to be met with at the head of aristocratic nations as 
well as in the sphere of a democracy ; this objection has but 
little weight in my estimation. The corruption of men who 
have casually risen to power has a coarse and vulgar infec¬ 
tion in it, which renders it contagious to the multitude. On 
the contrary, there is a kind of aristocratic refinement, and an 
air of grandeur, in the depravity of the great, which frequently 
prevents it from spreading abroad. 

The people can never penetrate the perplexing labyrinth 
of court intrigue, and it will always have difficulty in detect¬ 
ing the turpitude which lurks under elegant manners, refined 
tastes, and graceful language. But to pillage the public 
purse, and to vend the favors of the state, are arts which the 
meanest villain may comprehend, and hope to practise in 
his turn. 

In reality it is far less prejudicial to be a witness to the 
immorality of the great, than to that immorality which leads 
to greatness. In a democracy, private citizens see a man of 
their own rank in life, who rises from that obscure position, 
and who becomes possessed of riches and of power in a few 
years : the' spectacle excites their surprise and their envy : 
and they are led to inquire how the person who was yester¬ 
day their equal, is to-day their ruler. To attribute his rise 
to his talents or his virtues is unpleasant; for it is tacitly to 
acknowledge that they are themselves less virtuous and less 
talented than he was. They are therefore led (and not un- 
frequently their conjecture is a correct one) to impute his 
success mainly to some of his defects ; and an odious mix¬ 
ture is thus formed of the ideas of turpitude and power, un- 
worthiness and success, utility and dishonor. 


EFFORTS OF WHICH A DEMOCRACY IS CAPABLE. 


The Union has only hud one struggle hitherto for its Existence.—En¬ 
thusiasm at the Commencement of the War.—Indifference toward its 
Close.^Difficulty of establishing a military Conscription or impress¬ 
ment of Seamen in America.—Why a democratic People is less ca- 
])abie of sustained Effort than another. 

1 hi:re warn the reader that I speak of a government which 
implicitly follows the real desires of the people, and not of a 
government which simply commands in its name. Nothing 
is so irresistible as a tyrannical power commanding in the 
name of the people, because, while it exercises that moral 





228 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


influence which belongs to the decisions of the majority, it 
acts at the same time with the promptitude and the tenacity 
of a single man. 

It is difficult to say what degree of exertion a democratic 
government may be capable of making, at a crisis in the his¬ 
tory of the nation. But no great democratic republic has 
hitherto existed in the world. To style the oligarchy which 
ruled over France in 1793, by that name, would be to offer 
•an insult to the republican form of government. The United 
States afford the first example of the kind. 

The American Union has now subsisted for half a century, 
in the course of which time its existence has only once been 
attacked, namely, during the war of independence. At the 
commencement of that long war, various occurrences took 
place which betokened an extraordinary zeal for the service 
of the country.* But as the contest was prolonged, symp¬ 
toms of private egotism began to show themselves. No money 
was poured into the public treasury; few recruits could be 
raised to join the army; the people wished to acquire inde¬ 
pendence, but was very ill disposed to undergo the privations 
by which alone it could be obtained. “ Tax laws,” says 
Hamilton in the Federalist (No. 12), “ have in vain been 
multiplied ; new methods to enforce the collection have in 
vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly 
disappointed ; and the treasuries of the states have remained 
empty. The popular system of administration inherent in 
the nature of popular government, coinciding with the real 
scarcity of money incident to a languid and mutilated state 
of trade, has hitherto defeated every experiment for extensive 
collections, and has at length taught the different legislatures 
the folly of attempting them.” 

The United States have not had any serious war to carry 
on since that period. In order, therefore, to appreciate the 
sacrifices which democratic nations may impose upon them¬ 
selves, we must wait until the American people is obliged to 
put half its entire income at the disposal of the government, 
as was done by the English; or until it sends forth a twen¬ 
tieth part of its population to the field of battle, as was done 
by France. 

In America the use of conscription is unknown, and men 

* One of the most singular of these occurrences was the resolution 
which the Americans took of temporarily abandoning the use of tea. 
Those who know that men usually cling more to their habits than ta 
their life, will doubtless admire this great and obscure sacritice which 
was made by a whole people. 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


229 


are induced to enlist by bounties. The notions and habits 
of the people of the United States are so opposed to compul¬ 
sory enlistments, that I do not imagine that it can ever be 
sanctioned by the laws. What is termed the conscription in 
France is assuredly the heaviest tax upon the population of 
that country; yet how could a great continental war be car¬ 
ried on without it ? The Americans have not adopted the 
British impressment of seamen, and they have nothing which 
corresponds to the French system of maritime conscription ; 
the navy, as well as the merchant service, is supplied by 
voluntary engagement. But it is not easy to conceive how a 
people can sustain a great maritime war, without having re¬ 
course to one or the other of these two systems. Indeed, the 
Union, which has fought with some honor upon the seas, has 
never possessed a very numerous fleet, and the equipment of 
the small number of American vessels has always been ex¬ 
cessively expensive. 

[The remark that “ in America the use of conscription is unknown, 
and men are induced to enlist by bounties,” is not exactly correct. 
During the last war with Great Britain, the state of New York, in Oc¬ 
tober, 1814 (see the laws of that session, p. 15), passed an act to raise 
troops for the defence of the state, in which the whole body of the 
militia were directed to be classed, and each class to furnish one sol¬ 
dier, 80 as to make up the whole number of 12,000 directed to be 
raised. In case of the refusal of a class to furnish a man, one was to 
be detached from them by ballot, and was compelled to procure a sub¬ 
stitute or serve personally. The intervention of peace rendered pro¬ 
ceedings under the act unnecessary, and we have not, therefore, the 
light of experience to form an opinion whether such a plan of raising 
a military force is practicable. Other states passed similar laws. The 
system of classing was borrowed from the practice of the revolution. 
^American Editor, 

I have heard American statesmen confess that the Union 
will have great difficulty in maintaining its rank on the seas, 
without adopting the system of impressment or of maritime 
conscription ; but the difficulty is to induce the people, which 
exercises the supreme authority, to submit to impressment or 
any compulsory system. 

It is incontestable, that in times of danger a free people 
displays far more energy than one which is not so. But I 
incline to believe, that this is more especially the case in 
those free nations in which the democratic element prepon¬ 
derates. Democracy appears to me to be much better adapt¬ 
ed for the peaceful conduct of society, or for an occasional 
effort of remarkable vigor, than for the hardy and prolonged 
endurance of the storms which beset the political existence 
21 


230 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


of nations. The reason is very evident; it is enthusiasm 
which prompts men to expose themselves to dangea's and 
privations ; but they will not support them long without re¬ 
flection There is more calculation, even in the impulses 
of bravery, than is generally attributed to them ; and al 
though the first efforts are suggested by passion, perseverance 
is maintained by a distinct regard of the purpose in view. A 
portion of what we value is exposed, in order to save the 
remainder. 

But it is this distinct perception of the future, founded upon 
a sound judgment and an enlightened experience, which is 
most frequently wanting in democracies. The populace is 
more apt to feel than to reason ; and if its present sufferings 
are great, it is to be feared that the still greater sufferings at¬ 
tendant upon defeat will be forgotten. 

Another cause tends to render the efforts of a democratic 
government less persevering than those of an aristocracy. 
Not only are the lower classes less awakened than the higher 
orders to the good or evil chances of the future, but they are 
liable to suffer far more acutely from present privations. 
The noble exposes his life, indeed, but the chance of glory is 
equal to the chance of harm. If he sacrifices a large por¬ 
tion of his income to the state, he deprives himself for a time 
of the pleasure of affluence ; but to the poor man death is 
embellished by no pomp or renown ; and the imposts which 
are irksome to the rich are fatal do him. 

This relative impotence of democratic republics is, per¬ 
haps, the greatest obstacle to the foundation of a republic of 
this kind imEurope. In order that such a state should sub¬ 
sist in one country of the Old World, it would be necessary 
that similar institutions should be introduced into all the other 
nations. 

I am of opinion that a democratic government tends in the 
end to increase the real strength of society ; but it can never 
combine, upon a single point and at a given time, so much 
power as an aristocracy or a monarchy. If a democratic 
country remained during a whole century subject to a re¬ 
publican government, it would probably at the end of that 
period be more populous and more prosperous than the neigh¬ 
boring despotic states. But it would have incurred the risk 
of being conquered much oftener than they would in that 
lapse of years. 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


231 


SELF-CONTROL OF THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.' 

The American People acquiesces slowly, or frequently does not acqui¬ 
esce in what is beneficial to its Interests.—The faults of the Ameri¬ 
can Democracy are for the most part reparable. 

The difficulty which a democracy has in conquering the pas- 
sions, and in subduing the exigencies of the moment, with a 
view to the future, is conspicuous in the most trivial occur¬ 
rences in the United States. The people which is surround¬ 
ed by flatterers, has great difficulty in surmounting its incli¬ 
nations ; and whenever it is solicited to undergo a privation 
or any kind of inconvenience, even to attain an end which is 
sanctioned by its own rational conviction, it almost always 
refuses to comply at first. The deference of the Americans 
to the laws has been very justly applauded ; but it must be 
added, that in America the legislation is made by the people 
and for the people. Consequently, in the United States, the 
law favors those classes which are most interested in evading 
it elsewhere. It may therefore be supposed that an offensive 
law, which should not be acknowledged to be one of imme- 
dite utility, would either not be enacted or would not be 
obeyed. 

In America there is no law against fraudulent bankrupt¬ 
cies ; not because they are few, but because there are a great 
number of bankruptcies. The dread of being prosecuted as 
a bankrupt acts with more intensity upon the mind of the 
majority of the people, than the fear of being involved in 
losses or ruin by the failure of other parties ; and a sort of 
guilty tolerance is extended by the public conscience, to an 
offence which every one condemns in his individual capacity. 
In the new states of the southwest, the citizens generally take 
justice into their own hands, and murders are of very fre¬ 
quent occurrence. This arises from the rude manners and 
the ignorance of the inhabitants of those deserts, who do not 
perceive the utility of investing the law with adequate force, 
and who prefer duels to prosecutions. 

Some one observed to me one day, in Philadelphia, that 
almost all crimes in America are caused by the abuse of in¬ 
toxicating liquors, which the lower classes can procure in 
great abundance from their excessive cheapness.—“ How 
comes it,” said I, “ that you do not put a duty upon brandy?” 
—“ Our legislators,” rejoined my informant, “ have frequent¬ 
ly thought of this expedient; but the task of putting it in 
operation is a difficult one : a revolt might be apprehended ; 


232 


governmjent op the 


and the members who should vote for a law of this kind 
would be sure of losing their seats,”—“ Whence I am to in¬ 
fer,” I replied, “ that the drinking population constitutes the 
majority in your country and that temperance is somewhat 
unpopular.” 

When these things are pointed out to the American states¬ 
men, they content themselves with assuring you that time 
will operate the necessary change, and that the experience of 
evil will teach the people its true interests. This is fre¬ 
quently true; although a democracy is more liable to error 
than a monarch or a body of nobles, the chances of its re¬ 
gaining the right path, when once it has acknowledged its 
mistake, are greater also; because it is rarely embarrassed 
by internal interests, which conflict with those of the majority, 
and resist the authority of reason. But a democracy can only 
obtain truth as the result of experience ; and many nations 
may forfeit their existence, while they are awaiting the con¬ 
sequences of their errors. 

The great privilege of the Americans does not simply con¬ 
sist in their being more enlightened than other nations, but in 
their being able to repair the faults they may commit. To 
which it must be added, that a democracy cannot derive sub¬ 
stantial benefit from past experience, unless it be arrived at a 
certain pitch of knowledge and civilisation. There are tribes 
and peoples whose education has been so vicious, and whose 
character presents so strange a mixture of passion, of igno¬ 
rance, and of erroneous notions upon all subjects, that they 
are unable to discern the cause of their own wretchedness, 
and they fall a sacrifice to ills with which they are unac¬ 
quainted. 

I have crossed vast tracts of country that were formerly 
inhabited by powerful Indian nations which are now extinct; 
I have myself passed some time in the midst of mutilated 
tribes, which see the daily decline of their numerical strength, 
and of the glory of their independence ; and I have heard 
these Indians themselves anticipate the impending doom of 
their race. Every European can perceive means which 
would rescue these unfortunate beings from inevitable des¬ 
truction. They alone are insensible to the expedient; they 
feel the wo which year after year heaps upon their heads, but 
they will perish to a man without accepting the remedy. It 
Would be necessary to employ force to induce them to submit 
to the protection and the constraint of civilisation. 

The incessant revolutions which have convulsed the South 
American provinces for the last quarter of a century have 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


233 


frequently been adverted to with astonishment, and expecta¬ 
tions have been expressed that those nations would speedily 
return to their natural state. But can it be affirmed that the 
turmoil of revolution is not actually the most natural state of 
the South American Spaniards at the present time ? In that 
country society is plunged into difficulties from which all its 
efforts are insufficient to rescue it. The inhabitants of that 
fair portion of the western'hemisphere seem obstinately bent 
on pursuing the work of inward havoc. If they fall into a 
momentary repose from the effects of exhaustion, that repose 
prepares them for a fresh state of phrerisy. When I consider 
their condition, which alternates between misery and crime, 
I should be inclined to believe that despotism itself would be a 
benefit to them, if it were possible that the words despotism 
and benefit could ever be united in my mind. 


CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS BY THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. 

Direction given to the foreign Policy of the United States by Wash¬ 
ington and Jefferson.—Almost all the defects inherent in democratic 
Institutions are brought to light in the Conduct of foreign Affairs.— 
Their advantages are less perceptible. 

We have seen that the federal constitution intrusts the per¬ 
manent direction of the external interests of the nation to the 
president and the senate ;* which tends in some degree to de¬ 
tach the general foreign policy of the Union from the control 
of the people. It cannot therefore be asserted, with truth, 
that the external affairs of state are conducted by the demo¬ 
cracy. 

The policy of America owes its rise to Washington, and 
after him to Jefferson, who established those principles which 
it observes at the present day. Washington said, in the ad¬ 
mirable letter which he addressed to his fellow-citizens, and 
which may be looked upon as his political bequest to the 
country :— ^ 

“ The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign na¬ 
tions is, extending our commercial relations, to have with 
them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we 

* “ The president,” says the constitution, art. ii., sect. 2, § 2, “ shall 
have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make 
treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur.” The 
reader is reminded that the senators are returned for a term of six years, 
and that they are chosen by the legislature of each state. 

21 * 



234 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with 
perfect good faith. Here let us stop. 

“ Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have 
none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged 
in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially 
foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise 
in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary 
vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and 
collisions of her friendships or enmities. 

“ Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us 
to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under 
an efficient government, the period is not far off when we 
may defy material injury from external annoyance ; when 
we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we 
may at any time resolve^upon to be scrupulously respected ; 
when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making 
acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us 
provocation ; when we may choose peace or war, as our inte¬ 
rest, guided by justice, shall counsel. 

“ Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation ? 
Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground ? Why, by 
interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, 
entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European 
ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice ? 

“ It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances 
with any portion of the foreign world ; so far, I mean, as we 
are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as 
capable of patronising infidelity to existing engagements. I 
hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private 
affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, 
therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine 
sense; but in my opinion it is unnecessary, and would be 
unwise, to extend them. 

“ Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable esta¬ 
blishments, in a respectable defensive posture, we may safely 
trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.” 

In a previous part of the same letter, Washington makes 
the following admirable and just remark ; “ The nation which 
indulges toward another an habitual hatred, or an habitual 
fondness, is, in some degree, a slave.' It is a slave to its ani¬ 
mosity or its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it 
astray from its duty and its interest.” 

The political conduct of Washington was always guided 
by these maxims. He succeeded in maintaining his country 
in a state of peace, while all the other nations of the globe 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


235 


were at war ; and he laid it down as a fundamental doctrine, 
that the true interest of the Americans consisted in a perfect 
neutrality with regard to the internal dissensions of the Eu¬ 
ropean powers. 

Jefferson went still farther, and introduced a maxim into 
the policy of the Union, which affirms, that “ the Americans 
ought never to solicit any privileges from foreign nations, in 
order not to be obliged to grant similar privileges themselves.” 

These two principles, which were so plain and so just as 
to be adapted to the capacity of the populace, have greatly 
simplified the foreign policy of the United States. As the 
Union takes no part in the affairs of Europe, it has, properly 
speaking, no foreign interests to discuss, since it has at 
present no powerful neighbors on the American continent. 
The country is as much removed from the passions of the 
Old World by its position, as by the line of policy which it 
has chosen ; and it is neither called upon to repudiate nor to 
espouse the conflicting interests of Europe; while the dis¬ 
sensions of the New World are still concealed within the 
bosom of the future. 

The Union is free from all pre-existing obligations ; and 
it is consequently enabled to profit by the experience of the 
old nations of Europe, without being obliged, as they are, to 
make the best of the past, and to adapt it to their present cir¬ 
cumstances ; or to accept that immense inheritance which 
they derive from their forefathers—an inheritance of glory 
mingled with calamities, and of alliances conflicting with 
national antipathies. The foreign policy of the United States 
is reduced by its very nature to await the chances of the 
future history of the nation; and for the present it consists 
more in abstaining from interference than in exerting its ac¬ 
tivity. 

It is therefore very difficult to ascertain, at present, what 
degree of sagacity the American democracy will display in 
the conduct of the foreign policy of the country ; and upon 
this point its adversaries, as well as its advocates, must 
suspend their judgment. As for myself, I have no hesitation 
in avowing my conviction, that it is most especially in the 
conduct of foreign relations, that democratic governments 
appear to me to be decidedly inferior to governments carried 
on upon different principles. Experience, instruction, and 
habit, may almost always succeed in creating a species of 
practical discretion in democracies, and that science of the 
daily occurrences of life which is called good sense. Good 
sense may suffice to direct the ordinary course of society ; 




236 


GOVERNMENT OF THE 


and among a people whose education has been provided for, 
the advantages of democratic liberty in the internal affairs of 
the country may more than compensate for the evils inherent 
in a democratic government. But such is not always the 
case in the mutual relations of foreign nations. 

Foreign politics demand scarcely any of those qualities 
which a democracy possesses ; and they require, on the con¬ 
trary, the perfect use of almost all those faculties in which it 
is deficient. Democracy is favorable to the increase of the 
internal resources of a state ; it tends to diffuse a moderate 
independence ; it promotes the growth of public spirit, and 
fortifies the respect which is entertained for law in all classes 
of society: and these are advantages which only exercise an 
indirect influence over the relations which one people bears 
to another. But a democracy is unable to regulate the de¬ 
tails of an important undertaking, to persevere in a design, 
and to work out its execution in the presence of serious ob- 
Stacies. It cannot combine its measures with secrecy, and 
will not await their consequences with patience. These are 
qualities which more especially belong to an individual or to 
an aristocracy ; and they are precisely the means by which 
an individual people attains a predominant position. 

If, on the contrary, we observe the natural defects of aris¬ 
tocracy, we shall find that their influence is comparatively 
innoxious in the direction of the external affairs of a state. 
The capital fault of which aristocratic bodies may be accused, 
is that they are more apt to contrive their own advantage 
than that of the mass of the people. In foreign politics it is 
rare for the interest of the aristocracy to be in any way dis¬ 
tinct from that of the people. 

The propensity which democracies have to obey the im¬ 
pulse of passion rather than the suggestions of prudence, and 
to abandon a mature design for the gratification of a momen¬ 
tary caprice, was very clearly seen in America on the break- 
ing out of the French revolution. It was then as evident to 
the simplest capacity as it is at the present time, that the in¬ 
terests of the Americans forbade them to take any part in the 
contest which was about to deluge Europe with blood, but 
which could by no means injure the welfare of their own 
country. Nevertheless the sympathies of the people declared 
themselves with so much violence in behalf of France, that 
nothing but the inflexible character of Washington, and the im¬ 
mense popularity which he enjoyed, could have prevented 
the Americans from declaring war against England. And 
even then, the exertions, which the austere reason of that 


DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. 


237 


great man made to repress the generous but imprudent pas¬ 
sions of his fellow-citizens, very nearly deprived him of the 
sole recompense which he had ever claimed—that of his 
country’s love. The majority then reprobated the line of 
policy which he adopted, and which has since been unani¬ 
mously approved by the nation.* 

If the constitution and the favor of the public had not in¬ 
trusted the direction of the foreign affairs of the country to 
Washington, it is certain that the American nation would at 
that time have taken the very measures which it now con¬ 
demns. 

Almost all the nations which have exercised a powerful 
influence upon the destinies of the world, by conceiving, fol¬ 
lowing up, and executing vast designs-:^from the Romans to 
the English—have been governed by aristocratic institutions. 
Nor will this be a subject of wonder when we recollect that 
nothing in the world has so absolute a fixity of purpose as an 
aristocracy. The mass of the people may be led astray by 
ignorance or passion ; the mind of a king may be biased, and 
his perseverance in his designs may be shaken—beside which 
a king is not immortal ; but an aristocratic body is too nume- 
rous to be led astray by the blandishments of intrigue, and 
yet not numerous enough to yield readily to the intoxicating 
influence of unreflecting passion : it has the energy of a firm 
and enlightened individual, added to the power which it de¬ 
rives from its perpetuity. 

* See the fifth volume of Marshall’s Life of Washington. “ In a gov¬ 
ernment constituted like that of the United States,” he says, “ it is 
impossible for the chief magistrate, however firm he may be, to op¬ 
pose for any length of time the torrents of popular opinion ; and the 
prevalent opinion of that day seemed to incline to war. In fact, in the 
session of congress held at the time, it was frequently seen that Wash¬ 
ington had lost the majority in the house of representatives.” The vio¬ 
lence of the language used against him in public was extreme, and in 
a political meeting they did not scruple to compare him indirectly to 
the treacherous Arnold. “ By the opposition,” says Marshall, “the 
friends of the administration were declared to be an aristocratic and 
corrupt faction, who, from a desire to introduce monarchy, were hos¬ 
tile to France, and under the influence of Britain ; that they were a 
paper nobility, whose extreme sensibility at every measure which 
threatened the funds, induced a tame submission to injuries and in¬ 
sults, which the interests and honor of the nation required them to 
resist.” 


238 


ADVANTAGES DERIVED FROM THE 


CHAPTER XIV. 

WHAT THE R-EAL ADVANTAGES ARE WHICH AMERICAN SOCIETY 
DERIVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRACY. 

Before I enter upon the subject of the present chapter, I 
am induced to remind the reader of what I have more than 
once adverted to in the course of this book. The political 
institutions of the United States appear to me to be one of 
the forms of government which a democracy may adopt: 
but I do not regard the American constitution as'the best, or 
as the only one which a democratic people may establish. 
In showing the advantages which the Americans derive from 
the government of democracy, I am therefore very far from 
meaning, or from believing, that similar advantages can be ob¬ 
tained only from the same laws. 


GENERAL TENDENCY OF THE LAWS UNDER THE RULE OF THE 
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, AND HABITS OF THOSE WHO APPLY 
THEM. 

Defects of a democratic Government easy to be discovered.—Its ad¬ 
vantages only to be discerned by long Observation.—Democracy in 
America often inexpert, but the general Tendency of the Laws ad¬ 
vantageous.—In the American Democracy public Officers have no 
permanent Interests distinct from those of the Majority.—Result of 
this State of Things. 

The defects and the weaknesses of a democratic government 
may very readily be discovered ; they are demonstrated by 
the most flagrant instances, while its beneficial influence is 
less perceptibly exercised. A single glance suffices to de¬ 
tect its evil consequences, but its good qualities can only be 
discerned by long observation. The laws of the American 
democracy are frequently defective or incomplete; they 
sometimes attack vested rights, or give a sanction to others 
which are dangerous to the community ; but even if they 
were good, the frequent changes which they undergo would 
be an evil. How comes it, then, that the American republics 
prosper, and maintain their position ? 

In the consideration of laws, a distinction must be carefully 
observed between the end at which they aim, and the means 



GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRACY. 


239 


by which they are directed to that end ; between their abso¬ 
lute and their relative excellence. If it be the intention of 
the legislator to favor the interests of the minority at the ex¬ 
pense of the majority, and if the measures he takes are so 
combined as to accomplish the object he has in view with the 
least possible expense of time and exertion, the law may be 
well drawn up, although its purpose be bad ; and the more 
efficacious it is, the greater is the mischief which it causes. 

Democratic laws generally tend to promote the welfare of 
the greatest possible number ; for they emanate from a ma¬ 
jority of the citizens, who are subject to error, but who can¬ 
not have an interest opposed to their own advantage. The 
laws of an aristocracy tend, on the contrary, to concentrate 
wealth and power in the hands of the minority, because an 
aristocracy, by its very nature, constitutes a minority. It 
may therefore be asserted, as a general proposition, that the 
purpose of a democracy, in the conduct of its legislation, is 
useful to a greater number of citizens than that of an aristo¬ 
cracy. This is, however, the sum total of its advan¬ 
tages. 

Aristocracies are infinitely more expert in the science of 
legislation than democracies ever can be. They are pos¬ 
sessed of a self-control which protects them from the errors 
of a temporary excitement; and they form lasting designs 
which they mature with the assistance of favorable opportu¬ 
nities. Aristocratic government proceeds with the dexterity 
of art; it understands how to make the collective force of 
all its laws converge at the same time to a given point. 
Such is not the case with democracies, whose laws are al¬ 
most always ineffective, or inopportune. The means of 
democracy are therefore more imperfect than those of aristo¬ 
cracy, and the measures which it unwittingly adopts are fre¬ 
quently opposed to its own cause ; but the object it has in 
view is more useful. 

Let us now imagine a community so organized by nature, 
or by its constitution, that it can support the transitory action 
of bad laws, and it can await, without destruction, the general 
tendency of the legislation : we shall then be able to conceive 
that a democratic government, notwithstanding its defects, 
will be most fitted to conduce to the prosperity of this com¬ 
munity. This is precisely what has occurred in the United 
States ; and I repeat, what I have before remarked, that the 
great advantage of the Americans consists in their being able 
to commit faults which they may afterward repair. 

An analogous observation may be made respecting public 


240 


ADVANTAGES DERIVED FROM THE 


officers. It is easy to perceive that the American democracy 
frequently errs in the choice of the individuals to whom it 
intrusts the power of the administration ; but it is more diffi¬ 
cult to say why the state prospers under their rule. In the 
first place it is to be remarked, that if in a democratic state 
the governors have less honesty and less capacity than else¬ 
where, the governed on the other hand are more enlightened and 
more attentive to their interests. As the people in democra¬ 
cies is more incessantly vigilant in its affairs, and more jeal¬ 
ous of its rights, it prevents its representatives from abandon¬ 
ing that general line of conduct which its own interest pre¬ 
scribes. In the second place, it must be remembered that if 
the democratic magistrate is more apt to misuse his power, 
he possesses it for a shorter period of time. But there is yet 
another reason which is still more general and conclusive. It 
is no doubt of importance to the welfare of nations that they 
should be governed by men of talents and virtue ; but it is 
perhaps still more important that the interests of those men 
should not differ from the interests of the community at large ; 
for if such were the case, virtues of a high order might 
become useless, and talents might be turned to a bad ac¬ 
count. 

I say that it is important that the interests of the persons in 
authority should not conflict with or oppose the interests of the 
community at large; but I do not insist upon their having 
the same interests as the whole population, because I am 
not aware that such a state of things ever existed in any 
country. 

No political form has hitherto been discovered, which is 
equally favorable to the prosperity and the development of all 
the classes into which society is divided. These classes con¬ 
tinue to form, as it were, a certain number of distinct nations 
in the same nation; and experience has shown that it is no 
less dangerous to place the fate of these classes exclusively 
in the hands of any one of them, than it is to make one peo¬ 
ple the arbiter of the destiny of another. When the rich 
alone govern, the interest of the poor is always endangered ; 
and when the poor make the laws, that of the rich incurs 
very serious risks. The advantage of democracy does not 
consist, therefore, as has been sometimes asserted, in favoring 
the prosperity of all, but simply in contributing to the well¬ 
being of the greatest possible number. 

The men who are entrusted with the direction of public 
affairs in the United States, are frequently inferior, both in 
point of capacity and of morality, to those whom aristocratic 


GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRACY, 


241 


institutions would raise to power. But their interest is iden¬ 
tified and confounded with that of the majority of their fellow, 
citizens. They may frequently be faithless, and frequently 
mistake ; but they will never systematically adopt a line of 
conduct opposed to the will of the majority ; and it is impos¬ 
sible that they should give a dangerous or an exclusive tenden¬ 
cy to the government. 

The mal-administration of a democratic magistrate is a 
mere isolated fact, which only occurs during the short period 
for which he is elected.Corruption and incapacity do not 
act as common interests, which may connect men permanent¬ 
ly with one another, A corrupt or an incapable magistrate 
will concert his measures with another magistrate, simply be¬ 
cause that individual is as corrupt and as incapable as him¬ 
self ; and these two men will never unite their endeavors to 
promote the corruption and inaptitude of their remote poste¬ 
rity. The ambition and manoeuvres of the one will serve, 
on the contrary, to unmask the other. The vices of a magis¬ 
trate, in democratic states, are usually peculiar to his own 
person. 

But under aristocratic governments public men are swayed 
by the interests of their order, which, if it is sometimes con¬ 
founded with the interests of the majority, is very frequently 
distinct from them. This interest is the common and lasting 
bond which unites them together ; it induces them to coalesce, 
and to combine their efforts in order to attain an end which 
does not always ensure the greatest happiness of the greatest 
number; and it serves not only to connect the persons in 
authority, but to unite them to a considerable portion of the 
community, since a numerous body of citizens belongs to the 
aristocracy, without being invested with official functions. 
The aristocratic magistrate is therefore constantly supported 
by a portion of the community, as well as by the government 
of which he is a member. 

The common purpose which connects the interest of the 
magistrates in aristocracies, with that of a portion of their 
contemporaries, identifies it with that of future generations; 
their influence belongs to the future as much as to the present. 
The aristocratic magistrate is urged at the same time toward 
the same point, by the passions of the community, by his own, 
and I may almost add, by those of his posterity. Is it, then, 
wonderful that he does not resist such repeated impulses? 
And, indeed, aristocracies are often carried away by the spirit 
of their order without being corrupted by it j and they uncon- 
22 



242 


ADVANTAGES DERIVED FROM THE 


sciously fashion society to their own ends, and prepare it for 
their own descendants. 

The English aristocracy is perhaps the most liberal whiclj 
ever existed, and no body of men has ever, uninterruptedly, 
furnished so many honorable and enlightened individuals to 
the government of a country. It cannot, however, escape 
observation, that in the legislation of England the good of the 
poor has been sacrificed to the advantage of the rich, and the 
rights of the majority to the privileges of the few. Tlie con¬ 
sequence is, that England, at the present day, combines the 
extremes of fortune in the bosom of her society; and her 
perils and calamities are almost equal to her power and her 
renown. 

. In the United States, w'here the public officers have no 
interests to promote connected with their caste, the general 
and constant influence of the government is beneficial, although 
the individuals who conduct it are frequently unskilful and 
sometimes contemptible. There is, indeed, a secret tendency 
in democratic institutions to render the exertions of the citizens 
subservient to the prosperity of the community, notwithstand¬ 
ing their private vices and mistakes; while in aristocratic 
institutions there is a secret propensity, which, notwithstanding 
the talents and the virtues of those who conduct the govern¬ 
ment, leads them to contribute to the evils which oppress their 
fellow-creatures. In aristocratic governments public men 
may frequently do injuries which they do not intend; and in 
democratic states they produce advantages which they never 
thought of. 


PUBLIC SPIRIT IN THE UNITED STATES. 

Patriotism of Instinct.—Patriotism of Reflection.—Their different 
Characteristics.—Nations ought to strive to acquire the second when 
the first has disappeared.—Efforts of the Americans to acquire it.— 
Interest of the Individual intimately connected with that of the 
Country. 

There is one sort of patriotic attacnment which principally 
arises from that instinctive, disinterested, and undefinable 
feeling which connects the affections of man with his birth¬ 
place. This natural fondness is united to a taste for ancient 
customs, and to a reverence for ancestral traditions of the 
past; those who cherish it love their country as they love the 
mansion of their fathers. They enjoy the tranquillity which 






GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRACY. 


243 


it affords them ; they cling to the peaceful habits which they 
have contracted within its bosom; they are attached to the 
reminiscences which it awakens, and they are even pleased 
by the state of obedience in which they are placed. This 
patriotism is sometimes stimulated by religious enthusiasm, 
and then it is capable of making the most prodigious efforts. 
It is in itself a kind of religion ; it does not reason, but it acts 
from the impulse of faith and of sentiment. By some nations 
the monarch has been regarded as a personification of the 
country ; and the fervor of patriotism being converted into 
the fervor of loyalty, they took a sympathetic pride in his 
conquests, and gloried in his power. At one time, under 
the ancient monarchy, the French felt a sort of satisfaction in 
the sense of their dependence upon the arbitrary pleasure of 
their king, and they were wont to say with pride : “We are 
the subjects of the most powerful king in the world.” 

But, like all instinctive passions, this kind of patriotism is 
more apt to prompt transient exertion than to supply the 
motives of continuous endeavor. It may save the state in 
critical circumstances, but it will not unfrequently allow the 
nation to decline in the midst of peace. While the manners 
of a people are simple, and its faith unshaken, whde society 
is steadily based upon traditional institutions, whose legitimacy 
has never been contested, this instinctive patriotism is wont to 
endure. 

But there is another species of attachment to a country 
which is more rational than the one we have been describing. 
It is perhaps less generous and less ardent, but it is more 
fruitful and more lasting ; it is coeval with the spread of 
knowledge, it is nurtured by the laws, it grows by the exercise 
of civil rights, and in the end, it is confounded with the per¬ 
sonal interest of the citizen. A man comprehends the influence 
which the prosperity of his country has upon his own welfare ; 
he is aware that the laws authorize him to contribute his 
assistance to that prosperity, and he labors to promote it as a 
portion of his interest in the first place, and as a portion of his 
right in the second. 

But epochs sometimes occur, in the course of the existence 
of a nation, at which the ancient customs of a people are 
changed, public morality destroyed, religious belief disturbed, 
and the spell of tradition broken, while the diffusion of know- 
ledge is yet imperfect, and the civil rights of the community 
are ill secured, or confined within very narrow limits. The 
country then assumes a dim and dubious shape in the 
eyes of the citizens; they no longer behold it in the soil 


244 


ADVANTAGES DERIVED FROM THE 


which they inhabit, for that soil is to them a dull inanimate 
clod ; nor in the usages of their forefathers, which they have 
been taught to look upon as a debasing yoke ; nor in religion, 
for of that they doubt; nor in the laws, which do not originate 
in their own authority; nor in the legislator, whom they fear 
and despise. The country is lost to their senses, they can 
neither discover it under its own, nor under borrowed features, 
and they intrench themselves within the dull precincts of a 
narrow egotism. They are emancipated from prejudice, 
without having acknowledged the empire of reason ; they are 
animated neither by the instinctive patriotism of monarchical 
subjects, nor by the thinking patriotism of republican citi¬ 
zens ; but they have stopped half-way between the two, in 
the midst of confusion and of distress. 

In this predicament, to retreat is impossible; for a people 
cannot restore the vivacity of its earlier times, any more than 
a man can return to the innocence and the bloom of childhood : 
such things may be regretted, but they cannot be renewed. 
The only thing, then, which remains to be done, is to pro¬ 
ceed, and to accelerate the union of private with public inter¬ 
ests, since the period of disinterested patriotism is gone by for 
ever. 

I am certainly very far from averring, that, in order to ob- 
tain this result, the exercise of political rights should be 
immediately granted to all the members of the community. 
But I maintain that the most powerful, and perhaps the only 
means of interesting men in the welfare of their country, 
which we still possess, is to make them partakers in the gov¬ 
ernment. At the present time civic zeal seems to me to be 
inseparable from the exercise of political rights; and I hold 
that the number of citizens will be found to augment or de¬ 
crease in Europe in proportion as those rights are extended. 

In the United States, the inhabitants were thrown but as 
yesterday upon the soil which they now occupy, and they 
brought neither customs nor traditions with them there ; they 
meet each other for the first time with no previous acquaint¬ 
ance ; in short, the instinctive love of their country can 
scarcely exist in their minds; but every one takes as zealous 
an interest in the affairs of his township, his country, and of 
the whole state, as if they were his own, because every one, 
in his sphere, takes an active part in the government of 
society. 

The lower orders in the United States are alive to the per¬ 
ception of the influence exercised by the general prosperity 
upon their own welfare ; and simple as this observation is, it 


GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRACY. 


245 


is one which is but too rarely made by the people. But in 
America the people regard this prosperity as the result of its 
own exertions; the citizen looks upon the fortune of the pub¬ 
lic as his private interest, and he co-operates in its success, 
not so much from a sense of pride or of duty, as from what I 
shall venture to term cupidity. 

It is unnecessary to study the institutions and the history 
of the Americans in order to discover the truth of this remark, 
for their manners render it sufficiently evident. As the 
American participates in all that is done in his country, he 
thinks himself obliged to defend whatever may be censured ; 
for it is not only his country which is attacked upon these 
occasions, but it is himself. The consequence is that his 
national pride resorts to a thousand artifices, and to all the 
petty tricks of individual vanity. 

Nothing is more embarrassing in the ordinary intercourse 
of life than this irritable patriotism of the Americans. A 
stranger may be well inclined to praise many of the institu. 
tions of their country, but he begs permission to blame some 
of the peculiarities which he observes—a permission which is 
however inexorably refused. • America is therefore a free 
country, in which, lest anybody should be hurt by your re¬ 
marks, you are not allowed to speak freely of private indi¬ 
viduals or of the state ; of the citizens or of the authorities ; 
of public or of private undertakings ; or, in short, of anything 
at all, except it be of the climate and the soil; and even then 
Americans will be found ready to defend either the one or the 
other, as if they had been contrived by the inhabitants of the 
country. 

In our times, option must be made between the patriotism 
of all and the government of a few ; for the force and activity 
which the first confers, are irreconcilable with the guaran¬ 
tees of tranquillity which the second furnishes. 


NOTION OF RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

No great People without a Notion of Rights,—How the Notion of 
Rights can be given to a People.—Respect of Rights in the United 
States.—Whence it arises. 

After the idea of virtue, I am acquainted with no higher 
principle than that of right; or, to speak more accurately, 
these two ideas are commingled in one. The idea of right 
is simply that of virtue introduced into the political world. It 
22 =^ 



246 


ADVANTAGES DERIVED FROM THE 


is the idea of right which enabled men to define anarchy and 
tyranny; and which taught them to remain independent 
without arrogance, as well as to obey without servility. The 
man who submits to violence is debased by his compliance; 
but when he obeys the mandate, of one who possesses that 
right of authority which he acknowledges in a fellow-crea¬ 
ture, he rises in some measure above the person who delivers 
the command. There are no great men without virtue, and 
there are no great nations—it may also be added that there 
would be no society—without the notion of rights ; for what 
is the condition of a mass of rational and intelligent beings 
who are only united together by the bond of force ? 

I am persuaded that the only means which we possess at 
the present time of inculcating the notion of rights, and of 
rendering it, as it were, palpable to the senses, is to invest all 
the members of the community with the peaceful exercise of 
certain rights: this is very clearly seen in children, who are 
men without the strength and the experience of manhood. 
When a child begins to move in the midst of the objects 
which surround him, he is instinctively led to turn everything 
which he can lay his hands upon to his own purpose; he has 
no notion of the property of others ; but as he gradually 
learns the value of things, and begins to perceive that he may 
in his turn be deprived of his possessions, he becomes more 
circumspect, and he observes those rights in others which he 
wishes to have respected in himself.' The principle which 
the child derives from the possession of his toys, is taught to 
the man by the objects which he may call his own. In 
America those complaints against property in general, which 
are so frequent in Europe, are never heard, because in Amer¬ 
ica there are no paupers; and as every one has property of 
his own to defend, every one recognizes the principle upon 
which he holds it. 

The same thing occurs in the political world. In America 
the lowest classes have conceived a very high notion of po¬ 
litical rights, because they exercise those rights; and they 
refrain from attacking those of other people, in order to en¬ 
sure their own from attack. While in Europe the same 
classes sometimes recalcitrate even against the supreme pow- 
er, the American submits without a murmur to the authority 
of the pettiest magistrate. 

This truth is exemplified by the most trivial details of na¬ 
tional peculiarities. In France very few pleasures are 
exclusively reserved for the higher classes ; the poor are 
admitted wherever the rich are received; and they con- 













GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRACY. 


247 


sequently behave with propriety, and, respect whatever con¬ 
tributes to the enjoyments in wdiich they themselves partici¬ 
pate. In England, where wealth has a monopoly of amuse¬ 
ment as well as of power, complaints are made that whenever 
the poor happen to steal into the enclosures which are re¬ 
served for the pleasures of the rich, they commit acts of 
wanton mischief: can this be wondered at, since care has 
been taken that they should have nothing to lose ? 

The government of the democracy brings the notion of 
political rights to the level of the humblest citizens, just as 
the dissemination of wealth brings the notion of property 
within the reach of all the members of the community ; and 
1 confess that, to my mind, this is one of its greatest advan- 
ta.ges. I do not assert that it is easy to teach men to exercise 
political rights; but I maintain that when it is possible, the 
effects which result from it are highly important: and I add 
that if there ever was a time at which such an attempt ought 
to be made, that time is our own. It is clear that the influ¬ 
ence of religious belief is shaken, and that the notion of di¬ 
vine rights is declining; it is evident that public morality is 
vitiated, and the notion of moral rights is also disappearing: 
these are general symptoms of the substitution of argument for 
faith, and of calculation for the impulses of sentiment. ‘ If, in 
the midst of this general disruption, you do not succeed in 
connecting the notion of rights with that of pereonal interest, 
which is the only immutable point in the human heart, 
what means will you have of governing the world except by 
fear ? When I am told that since the laws are weak and 
the populace is wild, since passions are excited and the au¬ 
thority of virtue is paralyzed, no measures must be taken to 
increase the rights of the democracy ; I reply that it is for 
these very reasons that some measures of the kind must be 
taken ; and I am persuaded that governments are still more 
interested in taking them than society at large, because gov¬ 
ernments are liable to be destroyed, and society cannot 
perish. 

I am not, however, inclined to exaggerate the example 
which America furnishes. In those states the people was 
invested with political rights at a time when they could 
scarcely be abused, for the citizens were few in number 
and simple in their manners. As they have increased, the 
Americans have not augmented the power of the democracy, 
but they have, if I may use the expression, extended its domi¬ 
nions. 

ft cannot be doubted that the moment at which political 


248 


ADVANTAGES DERIVED FROM THE 


rights are granted to a people that had before been without 
them, is a very critical, though it be a very necessary one. 
A child may kill before be is aware of the value of life ; and 
he may deprive another person of his property before he is 
aware that his own may be taken away from him. The 
lower orders, when first they are invested with political rights, 
stand in relation to those rights, in the same position as a child 
does to the whole of nature, and the celebrated adage nmy then 
be applied to them, HomOj puer rohustus. This troth may 
even be perceived in America. The states in which the 
citizens have enjoyed their rights longest are those in which 
they make the best use of them. 

It cannot be repeated too often that nothing is more fertile 
in prodigies than the art of being free ; but there is nothing 
more arduous than the apprenticeship of liberty. Such is 
not the case with despotic institutions; despotism often pro¬ 
mises to make amends for a thousand previous ills ; it supports 
the right, it protects the oppressed, and it maintains public 
order. The nation is lulled by the temporary prosperity which 
accrues to it, until it is roused to a sense of its o>vn misery. 
Liberty, on the contrary, is generally established in the midst 
of agitation, it is perfected by civil discord, and its benefits 
cannot be appreciated until it is already old. 


RESPECT FOR THE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES. 

Respect of the Americans for the Law.—^Parental Affection which they 
entertain for it.—Personal Interest of every one to increase the 
Authority of the Law. 

It is not always feasible to consult the whole people, either 
directly or indirectly, in the formation of the law; but it 
cannot be denied that when such a measure is possible, the 
authority of the law is very much augmented. This popular 
origin, which impairs the excellence and the wisdom of 
legislation, contributes prodigiously to increase its power. 
There is an amazing strength in the expression of the deter¬ 
mination of a whole people ; and when it declares itself, the 
imagination of those who are most inclined to contest it, is 
overawed by its authority. The truth of this fact is very 
well known by parties; and they consequently strive to 
make out a majority whenever they can. If they have not 
the greater number of voters on their side, they assert that 
the true majority abstained from voting; and if they are 



GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRACY. 


249 


foiled even there, they have recourse to the body of those 
persons who had no votes to give. 

In the United States, except slaves, servants, and paupers 
in the receipt of relief from the townships, there is no class 
of persons who do not exercise the elective franchise, and who 
do not contribute indirectly to make the laws. Those who 
design to attack the laws must consequently either modify the 
opinion of the nation or trample upon its decision. 

A second reason, which is still more weighty, may be 
farther adduced : in the United States every one is personally 
interested in enforcing the obedience of the whole community 
to the law ; for as the minority may shortly rally the majority 
to its principles, it is interested in professing that respect for 
the decrees of the legislator, which it may soon have occasion 
to claim for its own. However irksome an enactment may 
be, the citizen of the United States complies with it, not only 
because it is the work of the majority, but because it originates 
in his own authority; and he regards it as a contract to 
which he is himself a party. 

In the United States, then, that numerous and turbulent 
multitude does not exist, which always looks upon the law as 
its natural enemy, and accordingly surveys it with fear and 
with distrust. It is impossible, on the other hand, not to per¬ 
ceive that all classes ^splay the utmost reliance upon the 
legislation of their country, and that they are attached to it 
by a kind of parental affection. 

I am wrong, however, in saying all classes; for as in 
America the European scale of authority is inverted, the 
wealthy are there placed in a position analogous to that of 
the poor in the Old World, and it is the opulent classes which, 
frequently look upon the law with suspicion. I have already 
observed that the advantage of democracy is not, as has been 
sometimes asserted, that it protects the interests of the whole 
community, but simply that it protects those of the majority. 
In the United States, where the poor rule, the rich have 
always some reason to dread the abuses of their power. This 
natural anxiety of the rich may produce a sullen dissatisfac¬ 
tion, but society is not disturbed by it; for the same reason 
which induces the rich to withhold their confidence in the 
legislative authority, makes them obey its mandates; their 
wealth, which prevents them from making the law, prevents 
them from withstanding it. Among civilized nations revolts 
are rarely excited except by such persons as have nothing to 
lose by them; and if the laws of a democracy are not always 
worthy of respect, at least they always obtain it; for those 


250 


ADVANTAGES DERIVED FROM THE 


who usually infringe the laws have no excuse for not com¬ 
plying with the enactments they have themselves made, and 
by which they are themselves benefited, while the citizens 
whose interests might be promoted by the infraction of them, 
are induced, by their character and their station, to submit 
to the decisions of the legislature, whatever they may be. 
Beside which, the people in America obeys the law not only 
because it emanates from the popular authority, but because 
that authority may modify it in any points which may prove 
vexatory ; a law is observed because it is a self-imposed evil 
in the first place, and an evil of transient duration in the 
second. 


ACTIVITY WHICH PERVADES ALL THE BRANCHES OF THE BODY 
POLITIC IN THE UNITED STATES J INFLUENCE WHICH IT EX¬ 
ERCISES UPON SOCIETY. 

More difficult to conceive the political Activity which pervades the 
United States than the Freedom and Equality which reign here.— 
The great activity which perpetually agitates the legislative Bodies 
is only an Episode to the general Activity.—Difficult for an Ameri¬ 
can to confine himself to his own Business.—Political Agitation 
extends to all social intercourse.—Commercial Activity of the Ame¬ 
ricans partly attributable to this cause —Indirect Advantages which 
Society derives from a democratic Government. 

On passing from a country in which free institutions are 
established to one where they do not exist, the traveller is 
struck by the change ; in the former all is bustle and activity, 
in the latter everything is calm and motionless. In the one, 
melioration and progress are the general topics of inquiry ; in 
the other, it seems as if the community only aspired to repose 
in the enjoyment of the advantages which it has acquired. 
Nevertheless, the country wliich exerts itself so strenuously 
to promote its welfare is generally more wealthy and more 
prosperous than that which appears to be so contented with 
its lot; and when we compare them together, we can scarcely 
conceive how so many new wants are daily felt in the former, 
while so few seem to occur in the latter. 

If this remark is applicable to those free countries in which 
monarchical and aristocratic institutions subsist, it is still 
more striking with regard to democratic republics. In these 
states it is not only a portion of the people which is busied 
with the melioration of its social condition, but the whole 



GOVERNMENT OE THE DEMOCRACY. 


251 


community is engaged in the task ; and it is not the exigen¬ 
cies and the convenience of a single class for which a pro¬ 
vision is to be made, but the exigencies and the convenience 
of all ranks of life. 

It is not impossible to conceive the surpassing liberty which 
the Americans enjoy ; some idea may likewise be formed of 
the extreme equality which subsists among, them ; but the 
political activity which pervades the United States must be 
seen in order to be understood. No sooner do you set fool 
upon the American soil than you are stunned by a kind of 
tumult; a confused clamor is heard on every side ; and a 
thousand simultaneous voices demand the immediate satisfac¬ 
tion of their social wants. Everything is in motion around 
you ; here, the people of one quarter of a town are met to 
decide upon the building of a church ; there, the election of 
a representative is going on ; a little further, the delegates of 
a district are posting to the town in order to consult upon some 
local improvements; or, in another place, the laborers of a 
village quit their ploughs to deliberate upon the project of a 
road or a public school. Meetings are called for the sole 
purpose of declaring their disapprobation of the line of con¬ 
duct pursued by the government; while in other assemblies 
the citizens salute the authorities of the day as the fathers 
of their country. Societies are formed, which regard drunk¬ 
enness as the principal cause of the evils under which the 
state labors, and which solemnly bind themselves to give a 
constant example of temperance.* 

The great political agitation of the American legislative 
bodies, which is the only kind of excitement that attracts the 
attention of foreign countries, is a mere episode or a sort of 
continuation of that universal movement which originates in 
the lowest classes of the people and extends successively to 
all the ranks of society. It is impossible to spend more 
efforts in the pursuit of enjoyment. 

The cares of political life engross a most prominent place 
in the occupation of a citizen in the United States; and 
almo.st the only pleasure of which an American has any idea, 
is to take a ])art in the government, and to discuss the part 
ho has taken. This feeling pervades the most trifling habits 
of life ; even the women frequently attend public meetings, 
and listen to political hai*angues as a recreation after their 

* At the time of my stay in the United States the temperance soci¬ 
eties already consisted of more than 270,000 members; and their effect 
had been to diminish the consumption of fermented liquors by 500,000 
gallons per annum m the state of Pennsylvania alone. 


252 


ADVjiNTAGBS DERIVED ^ROM THE 


household labors^ Debating clubs are to a certain eS^tefif 
a substitute for theatrical entertainments: an American can¬ 
not converse, but he can discuss; and when he attempts to 
talk he falls into a dissertation. He speaks to you as if he 
were addressing a meeting ; and if he should warm in the 
course of the discussion, he will infallibly say gentlemen,”' 
to the person with whom he is conversing. 

’ • In some countries the inhabitants display a certain repug.^ 
nance to avail themselves of the political privileges with 
' which the law invests them ; it would seem that they set too 
high a value upon their time to spend it on the interests of 
the community ; and they prefer to withdraw within the 
exact limits of a wholesome egotism, marked out by four sunk 
fences and a quickset hedge. But if an American were con¬ 
demned to coniine his activity to his own affairs, he would be 
robbed of one half of his existence j he would feel an immense 
void in the fife which he is accustomed to lead, and his 
wretchedness would be unbearable.* I am persuaded that 
if ever a despotic government is established in America, it 
will find it more difficult to surmount the habits which free 
institutions have engendered, than to conquer the attachment 
of the citizens to freedom. 

This ceaseless agitation which democratic government has 
introduced into the political world, influenees all social inter¬ 
course. I am not sure that upon the whole this is not the 
greatest advantage of democracy j and I am much less iir- 
elined to applaud it for what it does, than for what it causes 
to be done. 

It is incontestable that the people frequently conducts pub¬ 
lic business very ill; but it is impossible that the lower orders 
should take a part in public business without extending the 
circle of their ideas, and without quitting the ordinary ro-utine 
of their mental acquirements. The humblest individual who 
is called upon to co-operate in the government of society, 
acquires a certain degree of self-respect; and as he possesses- 
authority, he can command the services of minds much more 
enlightened than his own. He is canvassed by a multitude 
of applicants, who seek to deceive him in a thousand different 
ways, but who instruct him by their deceit. He takes a part 
in political undertakings which did not originate in his own 
conception, but which give him a taste for undertakings of 

* The same remark was made at Rome under the first Cesars. Mon¬ 
tesquieu somewhere alludes to the excessive despondency of certain 
Roman citizens who, after the excitement of political life, were all at 
once flung back into the stagnation of private life. 


GOVERNMENT OR THE REMOCRAcV. 258 

the kind. New meliorations are daily pointed out in the 
property which he holds in common with others^ and this gives 
him the desire of improving that pToperty which is more pe¬ 
culiarly his oWn. He is perhaps neither happier nor betteT 
than those who came before him, but he is better informed 
and more active* I have no doubt that the democratic insti¬ 
tutions of the United States, joined to the physical constitution 
of the country, are the cause (not the direct, as is so often 
asserted, but the indirect cause) of the prodigious commer¬ 
cial activity of the inhabitants. It is not engendered by the 
laws, but the people learns how to promote it by the experi¬ 
ence derived from legislation. 

When the opponents of democracy assert that a single 
individual performs the duties which he undertakes much 
better than the government of the community, it appears to 
me that they are perfectly right* The government of an in¬ 
dividual, supposing an equality of instruction on either !?ide, 
is more consistent, more persevering, and more accurate than 
that of a multitude, and it is much better qualified judiciously 
to discriminate the characters of the men it employs. If any 
deny what I advance, they have certainly never seen a demo¬ 
cratic government, or have formed their opinion upon very 
partial evidence. It is true that even when local circum¬ 
stances and the disposition of the people allow democratic in¬ 
stitutions to subsist, they never display a regular and method¬ 
ical system of government. Democratic liberty is far from 
accomplishing all the projects it undertakes, with the skill of 
an adroit despotism. It frequently abandons them before they 
have borne their fruits, or risks them when the consequences 
may prove dangerous j but in the end it produces more than 
any absolute government, and if it do fewer things well, it 
does a great number of things. Under its sWay, the transac¬ 
tions of the public administration are not nearly so important 
as what is done by private exertion. Democracy does not 
confer the most skilful kind of government upon the people, 
but it produces that which the most skilful governments are 
frequently unable to awaken, namely, an all-pervading and 
restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy whicln 
is inseparable from it, and which may, under favorable cir¬ 
cumstances, beget the most amazing benefits. These are the 
true advantages of democracy. 

In the present age, when the destinies of Christendom seem 
to be in suspense, some hasten to assail democracy as its foe 
while it is yet in its early growth ; and others are ready with 
their vows of adoration for this new duty which is springing 
23 


254 ADVANTAGES DERIVED FROM THE DEBIOCRACY. 

forth from chaos t but both parties are very imperfectly ac¬ 
quainted with the object'of their hatred or of their desires ; 
they strike in the dark, and distribute their blows by mere 
chance. 

We must first understand what the purport of society and 
the aim of government are held to be. If it be your inten¬ 
tion to confer a certain elevation upon the human mind, and 
to teach it to regard the things of this world with generous 
feelings ; to inspire men with a scorn of mere temporal ad¬ 
vantage ; to give birth to living convictions, and to keep alive 
the spirit of honorable devotedness ; if you hold it to be a 
good thing to refine the habits, to embellish the manners, to 
cultivate the arts of a nation, and to promote the love of 
poetry, of beauty, and of renown; if you would constitute a 
people not unfitted to act with power upon all other nations; 
nor unprepared for those high enterprises, which, whatever 
be the result of its efforts, will leave a name for ever famous 
in time—if you believe such to be the principal object of so¬ 
ciety, you must avoid the government of democracy, which 
would be a very uncertain guide to the end you have in 
view. 

But if you hold it to be expedient to divert the moral and 
intellectual activity of man to the production of comfort, and 
to the acquirement of the necessaries of life ; if a clear un¬ 
derstanding be more profitable to men than genius ; if your 
object be not to stimulate the virtues of heroism, but to create 
habits of peace ; if you had rather behold vices than crimes, 
and are content to meet with fewer noble deeds, provided 
offences be diminished in the same proportion ; if, instead of 
living in the midst of a brilliant state of society, you are con¬ 
tented to have prosperity around you ; if, in short, you are of 
opinion that the principal object of a government is not to 
confer the greatest possible share of power and of glory upon 
the body of the nation, but to ensure the greatest degree of 
enjoyment, and the least degree of misery, to each of the in¬ 
dividuals who compose it—if such be your desires, you can 
have no surer means of satisfying them than by equalizing 
the condition of men, and establishingHemocratio institutions. 

But if the time be past*^ at which such a choice was possi¬ 
ble, and if some superhuman power impel us toward one or 
the other of these two governments without consulting our 
wishes, let us at least endeavor to make the best of that which 
is allotted to us : and let us so inquire into its good and its 
evil propensities as to be able to foster the former, and re¬ 
press the latter to the utmost. 


POWER OF THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 255 



CHAPTER XV. 

UNLIMITED POWER OF THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES 
AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 

Natural Strength of the Majority in Democracies.—Most of the Ame¬ 
rican Constitutions have increased this Strength by artificial Means. 
—How this has been done.—Pledged Delegates.—Moral Power of 
the Majority.—Opinions as to its Infallibility.—Respect for its Rights, 
how augmented in the United States. 

V. 

The very essence of democratic government consists in the 
absolute sovereignty of the majority.: for there is nothing in 
democratic states which is capable of resisting it. Most of 
the American constitutions have sought to increase this na¬ 
tural strength of the majority by artificial means.* 

The legislature is, of all political institutions, the one which 
is most easily swayed by the wishes of the majority. The 
Americans determined that the members of the legislature 
should be elected by the people immediately, and for a very 
brief term, in order to subject them not only to the general 
convictions, but even to the daily passions of their constitu¬ 
ents. The members of both houses are taken from the same 
class in society, and are nominated in the same manner; so 
that the modifications of the legislative bodies are almost as 
rapid and quite as irresistible as those of a single assembly. 
It is to a legislature thus constituted, that almost all the au¬ 
thority of the government has been intrusted. 

But while the law increased the strength of those authori¬ 
ties which of themselves were strong, it enfeebled more and 
more those which were naturally weak. It deprived the re¬ 
presentatives of the executive of all stability and independ¬ 
ence ; and by subjecting them completely to the caprices of 
the legislature, it robbed them completely of the, slender in¬ 
fluence which the nature of a democratic government might 
have allowed them to retain. In several states the judicial 
power was also submitted to the elective discretion of the ma- 

* V^e observed in examining the federal constitution that the efforts 
of the legislators of the Union had been diametrically opposed to the 
present tendency. The consequence has been that the federal govern¬ 
ment is more independent in its sphere than that of the states. But 
the federal government scarcely ever interferes in any but external 
affairs ; and the governments of the states are in reality the authorities 
which direct society in America. 



256 ^ CONSEQUENCES OE UNLIMITED POWER OP 

jority; and in all of them its existence was made to depend 
on the pleasure of the legislative authority, since the repre¬ 
sentatives were empowered annually to regulate the stipend 
of the judges* . ^ 

Custom, however, has done even more than law. A pro¬ 
ceeding which will in the end set all the guarantees of re¬ 
presentative government at naught, is becoming more and 
more general ill the United States : it frequently happens that 
the electors, who choose a delegatej point out a certain line 
of conduct to him, and impose upon him a certain number of 
positive obligations which he is pledged to fulfil. With the 
exception of the tumult, this comes to the same thing as if 
the majority of the populace held its deliberations in the mar¬ 
ket-place. ^ 

Several other circumstances concur in rendering the power 
of the majority in America, not only preponderant, but irre¬ 
sistible. The moral authority of the majority is partly based 
Upon the notion, that there is more intelligence and more wis¬ 
dom in a great number of men collected together than in a 
single individual, and that the quantity of legislators is more 
important than their quality. The theory of equality is in 
fact applied to the intellect of man ; and human pride is thus 
assailed in its last retreat, by a doctrine which the minority 
hesitate to admit, and in which they very slowly concur. 
Like all other powers, and perhaps more than all other pow¬ 
ers, the authority of the many requires the sanction of time ; 
at first it enforces obedience by constraint; but its laws are 
not respected until they have long been maintained. 

The right of governing society, which the majority sup¬ 
poses itself to derive from its superior intelligence, was intro¬ 
duced into the United States % the first settlers; and this 
idea, which would be sufficient of itself to create a free na¬ 
tion, has now been amalgamated with the manners of the 
people, and the minor incidents of social intercourse. 

The French, under the old monarchy, held it for a maxim 
(which is still a fundamental principle of the English consti¬ 
tution), that the king could do no wrong; and if he did 
Wrong, the blame was imputed to his advisers. This notion 
Was highly favorable to habits of obedience ; and it enabled 
the subject to complain of the law, without ceasing to love 
and honor the lawgiver. The Americans entertain the same 
opinion with respect to the majority. 

The moral power of the majority is founded upon yet 
another principle, which is, that the interests of the many 
are to be preferred to those of the few. It will readily be 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 


257 


perceived that the respect here professed for the rights of the 
majority must naturally increase or diminish according to 
the state of parties. When a nation is divided into several 
irreconcilable factions, the privilege of the majority is often 
overlooked, because it is intolerable to comply with its demands. 

If there existed in America a class of citizens whom the 
legislating majority sought to deprive of exclusive privileges, 
which they had possessed for ages, and to bring down from 
an elevated station to the level of the ranks of the multitude, 
it is probable that the minority would be less ready to comply 
with its laws. But as the United States were colonized by 
men holding an equal rank among themselves, there is as 
yet no natural or permanent source of dissension between 
the interests of its different inhabitants. 

There are certain communities in which the persons who 
constitute the minority can never hope to draw over the ma¬ 
jority to their side, because they must then give up the very 
point which is at issue between them. Thus, an aristocracy 
can never become a majority while it retains its exclusive 
privileges, and it cannot cede its privileges without ceasing 
to be an aristocracy. 

In the United States, political questions cannot be taken up 
in so general and absolute a manner ; and all parties are 
willing to recognize the rights of the majority, because they 
all hope to turn those rights to their own advantage at some 
future time. The majority therefore in that country exer¬ 
cises a prodigious actual authority, and a moral influence 
which is scarcely less preponderant; no obstacles exist which 
can impede, or so much as retard its progress, or which can 
induce it to heed the complaints of those whom it crushes 
upon its path. This state of things is fatal in itself and dan¬ 
gerous for the future. 


HOW THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE MAJORITY INCREASES, IN 
AMERICA, THE INSTABILITY OF LEGISLATION AND THE AD¬ 
MINISTRATION INHERENT IN DEMOCRACY. 

The Americans increase the mutability of the Laws which is inherent 
in Democracy by changing the Legislature every Year, and by vest¬ 
ing it with unbounded Authority.—The same Effect is produced 
upon the Administration.—In America social Melioration is con¬ 
ducted more energeticallv, but less perseveringly than in Europe. 

I HAVE already spoken of the natural defects of democratic 
institutions, and they all of them increase in the exact 
23* 





258 


CONSEQUENCES OF UNLIMITED POWER OF 


ratio of tlie power of the majority. ‘ To begin with the most 
evident of them all; the mutability of the laws is an evil 
inherent in democratic government, because it is natural to 
democracies to raise men to power in very rapid succession. 
But this evil is more or less sensible in proportion to the 
authority and the means of action which the legislature pos¬ 
sesses. 

In America the authority exercised by the legislative bodies 
is supreme ; nothing prevents them from accomplishing their 
wishes with celerity, and with irresistible power, while they 
are supplied by new representatives every year. That is to 
say, the circumstances which contribute most powerfully to 
democratic instability, and which admit of the free applica¬ 
tion of caprice to every object in the state, are here in full 
operation. In conformity with this principle, America is, at 
the present day, the country in the world where laws last the 
shortest time. Almost all the American constitutions have 
been amended within the course of thirty years: there is, 
therefore, not a single American state which has not modified 
the principles of its legislation in that lapse of time. As for 
the laws themselves, a single glance upon the archives of 
the different states of the Union suffices to convince one, that 
in America the activity of the legislator never slackens. 
Not that the American democracy is naturally less stable 
than any other, but that it is allowed to follow its capricious 
propensities in the formation^ of the laws.* 

The omnipotence of the majority and the rapid as well as 
absolute manner in which its decisions are executed in the 
United States, have not only the effect of rendering the law 
unstable, but they exercise the same influence upon the exe¬ 
cution of the law and the conduct of the public administra¬ 
tion. As the majority is the only power which it is import¬ 
ant to court, all its projects are taken up with the greatest 
ardor; but no sooner is its attention distracted, than all this 
ardor ceases ; while in the free states of Europe, the admin¬ 
istration is at once independent and secure, so that the pro- 

* The legislative acts promulgated by the state of Massachusetts 
alone, from the year 1780 to the present time, already fill three stout 
volumes : and it must not be forgotten that the collection to which I 
allude was published in 1823, when many old laws which had fallen 
into disuse were omitted. The state of Massachusetts, which is not 
more populous than a department of France, may be considered as the 
most stable, the most consistent, and the most sagacious in its under¬ 
takings of the whole Union. 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 


259 


jects of the legislature are put into execution, although its 
immediate attention may be directed to other objects. 

In America certain meliorations are undertaken with much 
more zeal and activity than elsewhere; in Europe the same 
ends are promoted by much less social effort, more continuous¬ 
ly applied. - 

Some years ago several pious individuals undertook to me¬ 
liorate the condition of the prisons. The public was excited 
by the statements which they put forward, and the regenera¬ 
tion of criminals became a very popular undertaking. New 
prisons were built; and, for the first time, the idea of reform¬ 
ing as well as of punishing the delinquent, formed a part of 
prison discipline. But this happy alteration, in which the 
public had taken so hearty an interest, and which the exer¬ 
tions of the citizens had irresistibly accelerated, could not be 
completed in a moment. While the new penitentiaries were 
being erected (and it was the pleasure of the majority they 
should be terminated with all possible celerity), the old pri¬ 
sons existed, which still contained a great number of offend¬ 
ers. These jails became more unwholesome and more cor¬ 
rupt in proportion as the new establishments were beautified 
and improved, forming a contrast which may readily be un¬ 
derstood. The majority was so eagerly employed in found¬ 
ing the new prisons, that those which already existed were 
forgotten ; and as the general attention was diverted to a 
novel object, the care which had hitherto been bestowed upon 
the others ceased. The salutary regulations of discipline 
were first relaxed, and afterward broken ; so that in the im¬ 
mediate neighborhood of a prison which bore witness to the 
mild and enlightened spirit of our time, dungeons might be 
met with, which reminded the visitor of the barbarity of the 
middle ages. 


. i 


TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. 

How the Principle of the Sovereignty of the People is to be under¬ 
stood.—Impossibility of conceiving a mixed Government.—The sov¬ 
ereign Power must centre somewhere.—Precautions to be taken to 
control its Action.—These Precautions have not been taken in the 
United States.—Consequences. 

I HOLD it to be an impious and an execrable maxim that, poli¬ 
tically speaking, a people has a right to do whatsoever it 
pleases ; and yet I have'asserted that all authority originates 



260 CONSEQUENCES OF UNLIMITED POWER OF 

in the will of the majority. Am I, then, in contradiction 
with myself? 

A general law—which bears the name of justice—has 
been made and sanctioned, not only by a majority of this or 
that people, but by a majority of mankind. The rights of 
every people are consequently confined within the limits of 
what is just. A nation may be considered in the light of a 
jury which is empowered to represent society at large, and 
to apply the great and general law of justice. Ought such a 
jury, which represents society, to have more power than the 
society in which the laws it applies originate ? 

When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the 
right which the majority has of commanding, but I simply 
appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty 
of mankind. It has been asserted that a people can never 
entirely outstep the boundaries of justice and of reason in 
those affairs which are more peculiarly its own; and that 
consequently full power may fearlessly be given to the ma¬ 
jority by which it is represented. But this language is that 
of a slave. 

A majority taken collectively may be regarded as a 
being whose opinions, and most frequently whose interests, 
are opposed to those of another being, which is styled a minor¬ 
ity. If it be admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, 
may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why 
should a majority not be liable to the same reproach ? Men 
are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration ; nor 
does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with 
the consciousness of their strength.* And for these reasons I 
can never willingly invest any number of my fellow-crea¬ 
tures with that unlimited authority which I should refuse to 
any one of them. 

I do not think it is possible to combine several principles in 
the same government, so as at the same time to maintain 
freedom, and really to oppose them to one another. The 
form of government which is usually termed mixed has always 
appeared to me to be a mere chimera; Accurately speaking, 
there is no such thing as a mixed government (with the 
meaning usually given to that word), because in all commu¬ 
nities some one principle of action may be discovered, which 

* No one will assert that a people cannot forcibly wrong another 
people: but parties may be looked upon as lesser nations within a 
greater one, and they are aliens to each other : if therefore it be ad¬ 
mitted that a nation can act tyrannically toward another nation, it can¬ 
not be denied that a party may do the same toward another party. 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 261 

preponderates over the others. England in the last century, 
which has been more especially cited as an example of this 
form of government, was in point of fact an essentially aris¬ 
tocratic state, although it comprised very powerful elements 
of democracy : for the laws and customs of the country were 
such, that the aristocracy could not but preponderate in the 
end, and subject the direction of public affairs to its own will. 
The error arose from too much attention being paid to the 
actual struggle which was going on between the nobles and 
the people, without considering the probable issue of the con¬ 
test, which was in reality the important point. When a 
community really has a mixed government, that is to say, 
when it is equally divided between two adverse principles, it 
must either pass through a revolution, or fall into complete 
dissolution. 

I am therefore of opinion that some one social power must 
always be made to predominate over the others ; but I think 
that liberty is endangered when this power is checked by no 
obstacles which may retard its course, and force it to mode¬ 
rate its own vehemence. 

Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing ; 
human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion ; 
and God alone can be omnipotent, because his wisdom and 
his justice are always equal to his power. But no power 
upon earth is so worthy of honor for itself, or of reverential 
obedience to the rights which it represents, that I would con¬ 
sent to admit its uncontrolled and all-predominate authority. 
When T see that the right and the means of absolute com¬ 
mand are conferred on a people or upon a king, upon an 
aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I 
recognize the germ of tyranny, and I journey onward to a 
land of more hopeful institutions. 

In my opinion the main evil of the present democratic in¬ 
stitutions of the United States does not arise, as is often 
asserted in Europe, from their weakness, but from their over¬ 
powering strength ; and I am not so much alarmed at the 
excessive liberty which reigns in that country, as at the very 
inadequate securities which exist against tyranny. 

When an individual or a party is wronged in the United 
States, to whom can he apply for redress ? If to public 
opinion, public opinion constitutes the majority ; if to the le¬ 
gislature, it represents the majority, and implicitly obeys its 
instructions : if to the executive power, it is appointed by the 
majority and is a passive tool in its hands ; the public troops 
consist of the majority under arms; the jury is the majority 


262 


CONSEQUENCES OF UNLIMITED POWER OF 


invested with the right of hearing judicial cases; and in cer¬ 
tain states even the judges are elected by the majority. 
However iniquitous or absurd the evil of which you complain 
may be, you must submit to it as well as you can.* 

If, on the other hand, a legislative power could be so con¬ 
stituted as to represent the majority without necessarily being 
the slave of its passions; an executive, so as to retain a 
certain degree of uncontrolled authority ; and a judiciary, so 
as to remain independent of the-two other powers ; a govern¬ 
ment would be formed which would still be democratic, with¬ 
out incurring any risk of tyrannical abuse. 

I do not say that tyrannical abuses frequently occur in 
America at the present day ; but I maintain that no sure 
barrier is established against them, and that the causes which 

* A striking instance of the excesses which may be occasioned by the 
despotism of the majority occurred at Baltimore in the year 1812. At 
that time the war was very popular in Baltimore. A journal which 
had taken the other side of the question excited the indignation of the 
inhabitants by its opposition. The populace assembled, broke the 
printing-presses, and attacked the houses of the newspaper editors. 
The militia was called out, but no one obeyed the call; and the only 
means of saving the poor wretches who were threatened by the phrensy 
of the mob, was to throw them into prison as common malefactors. 
But even this precaution was ineffectual; the mob collected again 
during the night; the magistrates again made a vain attempt to call out 
the militia; the prison was forced, one of the newspaper editors was 
killed upon the spot, and the others were left for dead: the guilty 
parties were acquitted by the jury when they were brought to trial. 

I said one day to an inhabitant of Pennsylvania: “ Be so good as to 
explain to me how it happens, that in a state founded by quakers, and 
celebrated for its toleration, freed blacks are not allowed to exercise 
civil rights. They pay the taxes: is it not fair that they should have 
a vote.” 

“ You insult us,” replied my informant, “if you imagine that our 
legislators could have committed so gross an act of injustice and intole¬ 
rance.” 

“ What, then, the blacks possess the right of voting in this country 

“ Without the smallest doubt.” 

“ How comes it then, that at the polling-booth this morning I did 
not perceive a single negro in the whole meeting ?” 

“ This is not the fault of the law ; the negroes have the undisputed 
right of voting; but they voluntarily abstain from making their appear¬ 
ance.” 

“ A very pretty piece of modesty on their parts,” rejoined I. 

“ Why, the truth is, that they are not disinclined to vote, but they 
are afraid of being maltreated; in this country the law is sometimes 
unable to maintain its authority without the support of the majority. 
But in this case the majority entertains very strong prejudices against 
the blacks, and the magistrates are unable to protect them in the exer¬ 
cise of their legal privileges.” 

“ What, then, the majority claims the right not only of making the 
laws, but of breaking the laws it has made i*” 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 


263 


mitigate the government are to be found in the circumstances 
and the manners of the country more than its laws. • 


EFFECTS OF THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE MAJORITY UPON 

THE ARBITRARY AUTHORITY OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 
OFFICERS. 

Liberty left by the American Laws to public Officers within a certain 
Sphere.—Their Power. 

A DISTINCTION must be drawn between tyranny and arbitrary 
power. Tyranny may be exercised by means of the law, 
and in that case it is not arbitrary ; arbitrary power may be 
exercised for the good of the community at large, in which 
case it is not tyrannical. Tyranny usually employs arbitrary 
means, but, if necessary, it can rule without them. 

In the United States the unbounded power of the majority, 
which is favorable to the legal despotism of the legislature, is 
likewise favorable to the arbitrary authority of the magistrates. 
The majority has an entire control over the law when it is made 
and when it is executed; and as it possesses an equal 
authority over those who are in power, and the community at 
large, it considers public officers as its passive agents, and 
readily confides the task of serving its designs to their vigi¬ 
lance. The details of their office and the privileges which 
they are to’ enjoy are rarely defined beforehand ; but the 
majority treats them as a master does his servants, when 
they are always at work in his sight, and he has the power 
of directing or reprimanding them at every instant. 

In general the American functionaries are far more inde¬ 
pendent than the French civil officers, within the sphere 
which is prescribed to them. Sometimes, even, they are 
allowed by the popular authority to exceed those bounds ; and 
as they are protected by the opinion, and backed by the co¬ 
operation of the majority, they venture upon such manifesta¬ 
tions of their power as astonish a European. By this means 
habits are formed in the heart of a free country which may 
some day prove fatal to its liberties. 



264 


CONSEQUENCES OF UNLIMITED POWER OF 


POWER EXERCISED BY THE MAJORITY IN AMERICA UPON OPINION. 

In America, when the Majority has once irrevocably decided a Question, 
all Discussion ceases.—Reason of this.—Moral Power exercised by 
the Majority upon Opinion.—Democratic Republics have deprived 
Despotism of its physical Instruments—Their Despotism sways the 
Minds of Men. > 

It is in the examination of the display of public opinion in the 
United States, that we clearly perceive how far the power of 
the majority surpasses all the powers with which we are 
acquainted in Europe. Intellectual principles exercise an 
influence which is so invisible and often so inappreciable, that 
they baffle the toils of oppression. At the present time the 
most absolute monarchs in Europe are unable to prevent 
certain notions, which are opposed to their authority, from 
circulating in secret throughout their dominions, and even in 
their courts. Such is not the case in America; so long as 
the majority is still undecided, discussion is carried on ; but 
as soon as its decision is irrevocably pronounced, a submissive 
silence is observed ; and the friends, as well as the opponents 
of the measure, unite in assenting to its propriety. The 
reason of this is perfectly clear : no monarch is so absolute as 
to combine all the powers of society in his own hands, and to 
conquer all opposition, with the energy of a majority, which 
is invested with the right of making and of executing the laws. 

The authority of a king is purely physical, and it controls 
the actions of the subject without subduing his private will ; 
but the majority possesses a power which is physical and mo¬ 
ral at the same time ; it acts upon the will as well as upon 
the actions of men, and it represses not only all contest, but 
all controversy. 

I know no country in which there is so little true indepen¬ 
dence of mind and freedom of discussion as in America. In 
any constitutional state in Europe every sort of religious and 
political theory may be advocated and propagated abroad; 
for there is no country in Europe so subdued by any single 
authority, as not to contain citizens who are ready to protect 
the man who raises his voice in the cause of truth, from the 
consequences of his hardihood. If he is unfortunate enough 
to live under an absolute government, the people is upon his 
side ; if he inhabits a free country, he may find a shelter be¬ 
hind the authority of the throne, if he require one. The 
aristocratic part of society supports him in some countries, 
and the democracy in others. But in a nation where demo- 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 


265 


cratic institutions exist, organized like those of the United 
States, there is but one sole authority, one single element of 
strength and success, with nothing beyond it. 

In America, the majority raises very formidable barriers 
to the liberty of opinion : within these barriers an author may 
write whatever he pleases, but he will repent it if he ever step 
beyond them. Not that he is exposed to the terrors of an au- 
to-da-fe, but he is tormented by the slights and persecutions of 
daily obloquy. His political career is closed for ever, since 
he has offended the only authority which is able to promote 
his success. Every sort of compensation, even that of cele¬ 
brity, is refused to him. Before he published his opinions, he 
imagined that he held them in common with many others ; 
but no sooner has he declared them openly, than he is loudly 
censured by his overbearing opponents, while those who 
think, without having the courage to speak, like him, aban¬ 
don him in silence. He yields at length, oppressed by the 
• daily efforts he has been making, and he subsides into silence 
as if he was tormented by remorse for having spoken the 
truth. 

Fetters and headsmen were the coarse instruments which 
tyranny formerly employed; but the civilisation of our age 
has refined the arts of despotism, which seemed however to have 
been sufficiently perfected before. The excesses of monar¬ 
chical power had devised a variety of political means of op¬ 
pression ; the democratic republics of the present day have 
rendered it as entirely an affair of the mind, as that will 
which it is intended to coerce. Under the absolute sway of 
an individual despot, the body was attacked in order to subdue 
the soul; and the soul escaped the blows which were directed 
against it, and rose superior to the attempt; but such is not 
the course adopted by tyranny in democratic republics; there 
the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved. The sovereign 
can no longer say, “ You shall think as I do on pain of death 
but he says, “ You are free to think differently from me, and 
to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; 
but if such be your determination, you are henceforth an 
alien among your people. You may retain your civil rights, 
but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen 
by your fellow-citizens, if you solicit their suffrages ; and 
they will affect to scorn you, if you solicit their esteem. You 
will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights 
of mankind. Your fellow-creatures will shun you like an 
impure being; and those who are most persuaded of your in¬ 
nocence will abandon you too, lest they should be shunned in 
24 


260 CONSEQUENCES OP UNLIMITED POWER OF 

their turn. Go in peace ! I liave given you your life, but it 
is an existence incomparably worse than death.” 

Absolute monarchies have thrown an odium upon despot¬ 
ism ; let us beware lest democratic republics should restore 
oppression, and should render it less odious and less degrading 
in the eyes of the many, by making it still more onerous to 
the few. 

Works have been published in the proudest nations of the 
Old World, expressly intended to censure the vices and deride 
the follies of the time ; Labruyere inhabited the palace of 
Louis XIV. when he composed his chapter upon the Great, 
and Moliere criticised the courtiers in the very pieces which 
were acted before the court. But the ruling power in the 
United States is not to be made game of; the smallest reproach 
irritates its sensibility, and the slightest joke which has any 
foundation in truth, renders it indignant; from the style of 
its language to the more solid virtues of its character, every¬ 
thing must be made the subject of encomium. No writer, what- ^ 
ever be his eminence, can escape from this tribute of adula¬ 
tion to his fellow-citizens. The majority lives in the perpe¬ 
tual exercise of self-applause; and there are certain truths 
which the Americans can only learn fi’om strangeI's or from 
experience. 

If great writers have not at present existed in America, 
the reason is very simply given in these facts; there can be 
no literary genius without freedom of opinion, and freedom 
of opinion does not exist in America. The inquisition has 
never been able to prevent a vast number of anti-religious 
books from circulating in Spain. The empire of the majority 
succeeds much better in the United States, since it actually 
removes the wish of publishing them. Unbelievers are to be 
met with in America, but, to say the truth, there is no public 
organ of infidelity. Attempts have been made by some govern¬ 
ments to protect the morality of nations by prohibiting licen¬ 
tious books. In the United States no one is punished for this 
sort of works, but no one is induced to write them ; not be¬ 
cause all the citizens are immaculate in their manners, but 
because the majority of the community is decent and or¬ 
derly. 

In these cases the advantages derived from the exercise 
of this power are unquestionable ; and I am simply dis¬ 
cussing the nature of the power itself. This irresistible au¬ 
thority is a constant fact, and its beneficent exercise is an ac¬ 
cidental occurrence. 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 


267 


EFFECTS OF THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY UPON THE NA¬ 
TIONAL CHARACTER IN THE AMERICANS. 

Effects of the Tyranny of the Majority more sensibly felt hitherto in 
the Manners than in the Conduct of Society.—They check the de¬ 
velopment of leading Characters.—Democratic Republics, organized 
like the United States, bring the Practice of courting favor within 
the reach of the many.—Proofs of this Spirit in the United States.— 
Why there is more Patriotism in the People than in those who go¬ 
vern in its name. 

The tendencies which I have just alluded to are as yet very 
slightly perceptible in political society; but they already be¬ 
gin to exercise an unfavorable influence upon the national 
character of the Americans. I am inclined to attribute the 
paucity of distinguished political characters to the ever- 
increasing activity of the despotism of the majority in the 
United States. 

When the American revolution broke out, they arose in 
great numbers ; for public opinion then served, not to tyran¬ 
nize over, but to direct the exertions of individuals. Those cele¬ 
brated men took a full part in the general agitation of mind 
common at that period, and they attained a high degree of 
personal fame, which was reflected back upon the nation, but 
which was by no means borrowed from it. 

In absolute governments, the great nobles who are nearest 
to the throne flatter the passions of the sovereign, and vo¬ 
luntarily truckle to his caprices. But the mass of the nation 
does not degrade itself by servitude; it often submits from 
weakness, from habit, or from ignorance, and sometimes from 
loyalty. Some nations have been known to sacrifice their 
own desires to those of the sovereign with pleasure and with 
pride ; thus exhibiting a sort of independence in the very act 
of submission. These peoples are miserable, but they are not 
degraded. There is a great difference between doing what 
one does not approve, and feigning to approve what one does; 
the one is the necessary case of a weak person, the other be¬ 
fits the temper of a lacquey. 

In free countries, where every one is more or less called 
upon to give his opinions in the affairs of state ; in democra¬ 
tic republics, where public life is incessantly commingled with 
domestic affairs, where the sovereign authority is accessible on 
every side, and where its attention can almost always be at¬ 
tracted by vociferation, more persons are to be met with who spe¬ 
culate upon its foibles, and live at the cost of its passions, than 


268 CONSEQUENCES OF UNLIMITED POWER OF 

in absolute monarchies, p Not because men are naturally 
worse in these states than elsewhere, but the temptation is 
stronger, and of easier access at the same time. The re¬ 
sult is a far more extensive debasement of the characters 
of citizens. 

Democratic republics extend the practice of currying fa¬ 
vor with the many, and they introduce it into a great number 
of classes at once : this is one of the most serious reproaches 
that can be addressed to them. In democratic states organ¬ 
ized on the principles of the American republics, this is more 
especially the case, where the authority of the majority is so 
absolute and so irresistible, that a man must give up his rights 
as a citizen, and almost abjure his quality as a human being, 
if he intends to stray from the track which it lays down. 

In that immense crowd which throngs the avenues to power 
in the United States, I found very few men who displayed any 
of that manly candor, and that masculine independence of 
opinion, which frequently distinguished the Americans in 
former times, and which constitute the leading feature in 
distinguished characters wheresoever they may be found. It 
seems, at first sight, as if all the minds of the Americans 
were formed upon one model, so accurately do they cor¬ 
respond in their manner of judging. A stranger does, indeed, 
sometimes meet with Americans who dissent from these 
rigorous formularies ; with men who deplore the defects of the 
laws, the mutability and the ignorance of democracy; who 
even go so far as to observe the evil tendencies which impair 
the national character, and to point out such remedies as it 
might be possible to apply ; but no one is there to hear these 
things besides yourself, and you, to whom these secret reflec¬ 
tions are confided, are a stranger and a bird of passage. 
Tliey are very ready to communicate truths which are use¬ 
less to you, but they continue to hold a different language in 
public. 

If ever these lines are read in America, I am well assured 
of two things: in the first place, that all who peruse them 
will raise their voices to condemn me ; and in the second 
place, that very many of them will acquit me at the bottom 
of their conscience. 

[The author’s views upon what he terms the tyranny of the majority, 
the despotism of public opinion in the United States, have already ex¬ 
cited some remarks in this country, and will probably give occasion to 
more. As stated in the preface to this edition, the editor does not con¬ 
ceive himself called upon to discuss the speculative opinions of the 
author, and supposes he will best discharge his duty by confining his 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 


269 


observations to what he deems errors of fact or law. But in reference 
to this particular subject, it seems due to the author to remark, that he 
visited the United States at a particular time, when a successf^ul poli¬ 
tical chieftain had succeeded in establishing his party in power, as it 
seemed, firmly and permanently; when the preponderance of that 
party was immense, and when there seemed little prospect of any 
change. He may have met with men, who sank under the astonish¬ 
ing popularity of General Jackson, who despaired of the republic, and 
who therefore shrank from the expression of their opinions. It must 
be confessed, however, that the author is obnoxious to the charge 
which has been made, of the w'ant of perspicuity and distinctness in 
this part of his work. He does not mean that the press was silent, for 
he has himself not only noticed, but furnished proof of the great free¬ 
dom, not to say licentiousness, with which it assailed the character of 
the president, and the measures of his administration. 

He does not mean to represent the opponents of the dominant party 
as having thrown down their weapons of warfare, for his book shows 
throughout his knowledge of the existence of an active and able party, 
constantly opposing and harassing the administration. 

But, after a careful perusal of the chapters on this subject, the editor 
is inclined to the opinion, that M. De Tocqueville intends to speak of 
the tyranny of the party in excluding from public employment all 
those who do not adopt the Shibboleth of the majority. The language 
at pp. 266, 267, which he puts in the mouth of a majority, and his 
observations immediately preceding this note, seem to furnish the key 
to his meaning; although it must be admitted that there are other 
passages to which a wider construction may be given. Perhaps they 
may be reconciled by the idea that the author considers the acts and 
opinions of the dominant party as the just and true expression of pub¬ 
lic opinion. And hence, when he speaks of the intolerance of public 
opinion, he means the exclusiveness of the party, which, for the time 
being, may be predominant. He had seen men of acknowledged com¬ 
petency removed from office, or excluded from it, wholly on the ground 
of their entertaining opinions hostile to those of the dominant party, or 
majority. And he had seen this system extended to the very lowest 
officers of the government, and applied by the electors in their choice 
of all officers of all descriptions; and this he deemed persecution— 
tyranny—despotism. But he surely is mistaken in representing the 
effect of this system of terror as stifling all complaint, silencing all op¬ 
position, and inducing “ enemies and friends to yoke themselves alike 
to the triumphant car of the majority.” He mistook a temporary state 
of parties for a permanent and ordinary result, and he was carried away 
by the im.mense majority that then supported the administration, to the 
belief of a universal acquiescence. Without intending here to speak 
of the merits or demerits of those who represented that majority, it is 
proper to remark, that the great change which has taken place since 
the period when the author wrote, in the political condition of the very 
persons who he supposed then wielded the terrors of disfranchisement 
against their opponents, in itself furnishes a full and complete demon¬ 
stration of the error of his opinions respecting the “ true independence 
of mind and freedom of discussion” in America. For without such 
discussion to enlighten the minds of the people, and without a stern 
independence of the rewards and threats of those in power, the change 
alluded to could not have occurred. 

There is reason to complain not only of the ambiguity, but of the 
style of exaggeration which pervades all the remarks of the author pn 

24 * 




270 


CONSEQUENCES OF UNLIMITED POWER OF 


this subject—so different from the well considered and nicely adjusted 
language employed by him on all other topics. Thus, p. 262, he im¬ 
plies that there is no means of redress afforded even by the judiciary, 
for a wrong committed by the majority. His error is, Jirst, in sup¬ 
posing the jury to constitute the judicial power; second, overlooking 
what he has himself elsewhere so well described, the independence 
of the judiciary, and its means of controlling the action of a majority 
in a state or in the federal government; and thirdly, in omitting the 
proper consideration of the frequent changes of popular sentiment by 
which the majority of yesterday becomes the minority of to-day, and 
its acts of injustice are reversed. 

Certain it is that the instances which he cites at this page, do not 
establish his position respecting the disposition of the majority. The 
riot at Baltimore was, like other riots in England and in France, the 
result of popular phrensy excited to madness by conduct of the most 
provoking character. The majority in the state of Maryland and 
throughout the United States, highly disapproved tne acts of vio¬ 
lence committed on the occasion. The acquittal by a jury of those ar¬ 
raigned for the murder of General Lingan, proves only that there was 
not sufficient evidence to identify the accused, or that the jury was 
governed by passion. It is not perceived how the majority of the peo¬ 
ple are answerable for the verdicts rendered. The guilty have often 
been erroneously acquitted in all countries, and in France particularly, 
recent instances are not wanting of acquittals especially in prosecutions 
for political offences, against clear and indisputable testimony. And 
it was entirely fortuitous that the jury was composed of men whose 
sympathies were with the rioters and murderers, if the fact was so. 
It not unfrequently happens that a jury taken from lists furnished 
years perhaps, and always a long time, before the trial, are decidedly 
hostile to the temporary prevailing sentiments of their city, county, 
or state. 

As in the other instance, if the inhabitant of Pennsylvania intended 
to intimate to our author, that a colored voter would be in personal 
jeopardy for venturing to appear at the polls to exercise his right, it 
must be said in truth, that the incident was local and peculiar, and 
contrary to what is annually seen throughout the states where colored 
persons are permitted to vote, who exercise that privilege with as full 
immunity from injury or oppression, as any white citizen. And, after 
all, it is believed that the state of feeling intimated by the informant 
of our author, is but an indication of dislike to a caste degraded by 
servitude and ignorance; and it is not perceived how it proves the des¬ 
potism of a majority over the freedom and independence of opinion. 
If it be true, it proves a detestable tyranny over acts, over the exercise 
of an acknowledged right. The apprehensions of a mob committing 
violence deterred the colored voters from approaching the polls. Are 
instances unknown in England or even in France, of peaceable sub¬ 
jects being prevented by mobs or the fear of them, from the exercise 
of a right, from the discharge of a duty ? And are they evidences of the 
despotism of a majority in those countries ?—American Editor."] 

I have heard of patriotism in the United States, and it is a 
virtue which may be found among the people, but never 
among the leaders of the people. This may be explained by 
analogy ; despotism debases the oppressed, much more than 
the oppressor ; in absolute monarchies the king has often great 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 


t271 


virtues, but the courliei's aix? invariably servile. It is true 
that the American courtiers do not say, “ sire,” or “ your 
majesty ”—a distinction without a difference. They are for 
ever talking of the natural intelligenee of the populace they 
serve ; they do net debate the ^question as to which of the 
virtues of their master are pre-eminently worthy of admira¬ 
tion ; for they assure him that he possesses all the virtues 
under heaven without having acquired them, or without caring 
to acquire them : they do not give him their daughters and 
their wives to be raised at his pleasure to the rank of his con¬ 
cubines, but, by sacrificing their opinions, they prostitute 
themselves. Moralists and philosophers in America are not 
obliged to conceal their opinions under the veil of allegory ; 
but, before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say: “We 
are aware that the people which we are addressing is too 
superior to all the weaknesses of human nature to lose the 
command of its temper for an instant; and we should not 
hold this language if we were not speaking to men, whom 
their virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of 
freedom than all the rest of the woidd.” 

It w'ould have been impossible for the sycophants of Louis 
XIV. to flatter more dexterously. For my part, I am per¬ 
suaded that in all governments, whatever their nature may 
be, servility WTli cow'er to force, and adulation will cling to 
power. The only means of preventing men from degrading 
themselves, is to invest no one with that unlimited authority 
which is the surest method of debasing them. 


THE GREATEST DANGERS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS PROCEED 
FROM THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE MAJORITY. 

Democratic Republics liable to perish from a misuse of their Power, 
and not by Impotence.—The Governments of the American Repub¬ 
lics are more Centralized and more Energetic than those of the 
Monarchies of Europe.—Dangers resulting from this.—Opinions of 
Hamilton and Jeflerson upon this Point. 

Governments usually fall a sacrifice to impotence or to 
tyranny. In the former case their power escapes from them: 
it is wrested from their grasp in the latter. Many observers 
who have noticed the anarchy of domestic states, have imag¬ 
ined that the government of those states was naturally weak 
and impotent. The truth is, that when once hostilities are 
begun between parties, the government loses its control over 



272 


CONSEQUENCES OF UNLIMITED POWER OF 


society. But I do not think that a democratic power is natu¬ 
rally without resources : say rather, that it is almost always 
by the abuse of its force, and the misemployment of its re¬ 
sources, that a democratic government fails. Anarchy is 
almost always produced by its tyranny or its mistakes, but not 
by its want of strength. 

It is important not to confound stability with force, or the great¬ 
ness of.'a thing with its duration. In democratic republics, 
the power which directs* society is not stable; for it often 
changes hands and assumes anew direction. But whichever 
way it turns, its force is almost irresistible. The govern¬ 
ments of the American republics appear to me to be as much 
centralized as those of the absolute monarchies of Europe, 
and more energetic than they are. I do not, therefore, ima¬ 
gine that they will perish from weakness.j 

If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that 
event may be attributed to the unlimited authority of the mei- 
jority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to 
desperation, and oblige them to have recourse to physical 
force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been 
brought about by despotism. 

Mr. Hamilton expresses the same opinion in the Federalist, 
No. 51. “ It is of great importance in a republic not only to 

guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to 
guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other 
part. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of 
civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued 
until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In 
a society, under the forms of w^hich the stronger faction can 
readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly 
be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the w eaker in¬ 
dividual is not secured against the violence of the stronger : 
and as in the latter state even the stronger individuals are 
prompted by the uncertainty of their condition to submit to a 
government which may protect the w^cak as well as them¬ 
selves, so in the former state wull the more powerful factions 
be gradually induced by a like motive to wish for a govern¬ 
ment which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the 
more powerful. It can be little doubted, that if the state of 

* This power may be centred in an assembly, in w'hich case it will 
be strong without being stable ; or it may be centred in an individual, 
in which case it will be less strong, but more stable. 

t I presume that it is scarcely necessary to remind the reader here, 
p well as throughout the remainder of this chapter, that I am speak¬ 
ing not of the federal government, but of the several governments of 
each state which the majority controls at its pleasure. 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 273 

Rhode Island v/as separated from the confederacy and left to 
itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of gov- 
ernment within such narrow limits, would be displayed by 
such reiterated oppression of the factious majorities, that some 
power altogether independent of the people would soon be 
called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had 
proved the necessity of it.” 

Jefferson has also expressed himself in a letter to Madi¬ 
son :* “ The executive power in our government is not the 
only, perhaps not even the principal object of my solicitude. 
The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to 
be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. 
The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, 
but at a more distant period.” 

I am glad to cite the opinion of Jefferson upon this subject 
rather than that of another, because I consider him to be the 
most powerful advocate democracy has ever sent forth. 


CHAPTER XVI. 

CAUSES WHICH MITIGATE THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY IN 
THE UNITED STATES. 


ABSENCE OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION. 

The national Majority does not pretend to conduct all Business.—Is 
obliged to employ the town and county Magistrates to execute its 
supreme Decisions. 

I HAVE already pointed out the distinction which is to be made 
between a centralized government and a centralized admin¬ 
istration. The former exists in America, but the latter is 
nearly unknown there. If the directing power of the American 
communities had both these instruments of government at its 
disposal, and united the habit of executing its own commands 
to the right of commanding; if, after having established the 
general principles of government, it descended to the details of 
public business; and if, having regulated the great interests 
of the country, it would penetrate into the privacy of indi- 


15th March, 1789. 




274 CAUSES WHICH MITIGATE THE TYRANNY OF 

vidual interest, freedom would soon be banished from the New 
World. 

But in the United States the majority, which so frequently 
displays the tastes and the propensities of a despot, is still 
destitute of the more perfect instruments of tyranny. 

In the American republics the activity of the central 
government has never as yet been extended beyond a limited 
number of objects sufficiently prominent to call forth its 
attention. The secondary affairs of society have never been 
regulated by its authority ; and nothing has hitherto betrayed 
its desire of interfering in them. The majority is become 
more and more absolute, but it has not increased the preroga¬ 
tives of the central government; those great prerogatives 
have been confined to a certain sphere ; and although the 
despotism of the majority may be galling upon one point, it 
cannot be said to extend to all. However the predominant 
party of the nation may be carried away by its passions ; 
however ardent it may be in the pursuit of its projects, it 
cannot oblige all the citizens to comply with its desire in the 
same manner, and at the same time, throughout the country. 
When the central government which represents that majority 
has issued a decree, it must intrust the execution of its will 
to agents, over whom it frequently has no control, and whom 
it cannot perpetually direct. The townships, municipal 
bodies, and counties, may therefore be looked upon as concealed 
breakwaters, which check or part the tide of popular excite¬ 
ment. If an oppressive law were passed, the liberties of the 
people would still be protected by the means by which that 
law would be put in execution: the majority cannot descend 
to the details, and (as I will venture to style them) the 
puerilities of administrative tyranny. Nor does the people 
entertain that full consciousness of its authority,i,vvhich would 
prompt it to interfere in these matters ; it know’s the extent 
of its natural powers, but it is unacquainted with the increased 
resources which the art of government might furnish. 

This point deserves attention ; for if a democratic republic, 
similar to that of the United States, were ever founded in a 
country where the power of a single individual had previously 
subsisted, and the effects of a centralized administration had 
sunk deep into the habits and the laws of the people, I do not 
hesitate to assert, that in that country a more insufferable 
despotism would prevail than any which now exists in the 
absolute monarchies of Europe ; or indeed than any which 
could be found on this side the confines of Asia. 


YHS MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 


275 


THE PROFESSION OF THE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES SERVES 
TO COUNTERFOISE THE DEMOCRACY. 

Utility of discriminating the natural Propensities of the Members of 
the legal Profession —These Men called upon to act a prominent 
Part in future Society.—In what Manner the peculiar Pursuits of 
Lawyers give an aristocratic turn to their Ideas.—Accidental Causes 
which may check this Tendency.—Ease with which the Aristocracy 
coalesces with legal Men.—Use of Lawyers to a Despot—The Pro¬ 
fession of the Law constitutes the only aristocratic Element with 
which the natural Elements of Democracy will combine.—Peculiar 
Causes which tend to give an aristocratic turn of Mind to the English 
tind American Lavryer.—The Aristocracy of America is on the Bench 
•and at the Bar.—Influence of Lawyers upon American Society.— 
Their peculiar magisterial Habits affect the Legislature, the Admin¬ 
istration, and even the People. 

In visiting the Americans and in studying their laws, we per- 
ceive that the authority they have intrusted to members of the 
legal profession, and the influence which these individuals 
exercise in the government, is the most powerful existing 
security against the excesses of democracy. 

This effect seems to me to result from a general cause 
which it is useful to investigate, since it may produce analogous 
consequences elsewhere. 

The members of the legal profession have taken an im¬ 
portant part in all the vicissitudes of political society in 
Europe during the last five hundred yeai's. At one time they 
have been the instruments of those who are invested with 
political authority, and at another they have succeeded in 
converting political authorities into their instrument. In the 
middle ages they afforded a powerful support to the crown ; 
and since that period they have exerted themselves to the 
utmost to limit the royal prerogative. In England they have 
contracted a close alliance with the aristocracy; in France 
they have proved to be the most dangerous enemies of that 
class. It is my object to inquire whether, under all these 
circumstances, the members of the legal profession have been 
swayed by sudden and momentary impulses ; or whether 
they have been impelled by principles which are inherent in 
their pursuits, and which will always recur in history. I am 
incited to this investigation by reflecting that this particular 
class of men will most likely play a prominent part in that 
order of things to which the events of our time are giving 
birth. 

Men who have more especially devoted themselves to legal 
pursuits^ derive fromtho,se occupations certain habits of order, 


276 CAUSES WHICH MITIGATE THE TYRARN'S’ OT 

a taste for formalities, and a kind of instinctive regard for the 
regular connexion of ideas, which naturally render them very 
hostile to the revolutionary spirit and the Unreflecting passions 
of the multitude. 

The special information which lawyers derive from their 
studies, ensures them a separate station in society: and they 
constitute a sort of privileged body in the scale of intelligence* 
/This notion of their superiority perpetually recurs to them in 
the practice of their profession: they are the masters of a 
science which is necessary, but which is not very generally 
known : they,serve as arbiters between the citizens ; and the 
habit of directing the blind passions of parties in litigation to 
their purpose, inspires them with a certain contempt for the 
judgment of the multitude. To this it may be added, that 
they naturally constitute a hody ; not by any previous under¬ 
standing, or by any agreement which directs them to a com¬ 
mon end ; but the analogy of their studies and the uniformity 
of their proceedings connect their minds together, as much as 
a common interest would combine their endeavors. 

A portion of the tastes and of the habits of the aristocracy 
may consequently be discovered in the characters of men in 
the profession of the law. They participate in the same 
instinctive love of order and of formalities; and they enter¬ 
tain the same repugnance to the actions of the multitude, and 
the same secret contempt of the government of the people. I 
do not mean to say that the natural propensities lawyers 
are sufficiently strong to sway them irresistibly ; for they, 
like most other men, are governed by their private interests 
and the advantages of the moment. 

In a state of society in which the membei”s of the legal 
profession are prevented from holding that rank in the politi¬ 
cal world which they enjoy in private life, we may rest 
assured that they will be the foremost agents of revolution* 
But it must then be inquired whether the cause which induces 
them to innovate and to destroy is accidental, or whether it 
belongs to some lasting purpose which they entertain. It is 
true that lawyers mamly contributed to the overthrow of the 
French monarchy in 1789 ; but it remains to be seen whether 
they acted thus because they had studied the laws, or because 
they were prohibited from co-operating in the work of legis¬ 
lation. 

Five hundred years ago the English nobles headed the 
people, and spoke in its name ,' at the present time, the aris¬ 
tocracy supports the throne, and defends the royal preroga¬ 
tive. But aristocracy has, notwithstanding this, its peculiar 


TttB MAJORIW in the UNITEH STATES. STt 

instincts and propensities. We must be careful not to cort^ 
found isolated members of a body with the body itself. Irt 
all free governments, of whatsoever form they may be, mem¬ 
bers of the legal profession may be found at the head of all 
parties. The same remark is also applicable to the aristo¬ 
cracy j for almost all the democratic convulsions which have 
agitated the world have been directed by nobles. 

A privileged body can never satisfy the ambition of all its 
members ; it has always more talents and more passions than 
it can find places to content and to employ ; so that a con¬ 
siderable number of individuals are usually to be met with, 
who are inclined to attack those very privileges, which they 
find it impossible to turn to their own account. 

I do not, then, assert that all the members of the legal pro¬ 
fession are at all times the friends of order and the opponents 
of innovation, but merely that most of them usually are so. 
In a community in which lawyers are allowed to occupy, 
without opposition, that high station which naturally belongs 
to them, their general spirit will be eminently conservative 
and anti-democratic. When an aristocracy excludes the 
leaders of that profession from its ranks, it excites enemies 
which are the more formidable to its security as they are in¬ 
dependent of the nobility by their industrious pursuits ; and 
they feel themselves to be its equal in point of intelligence, 
although they enjoy less opulence and less power. But 
whenever an aristocracy consents to impart some of its privi¬ 
leges to these same individuals, the two classes coalesce very 
readily, and assume, as it were, the consistency of a single 
order of family interests. 

I am, in like manner, inclined to believe that a monarch 
will always be able to convert legal practitioners into the 
most serviceable instruments of his authority. There is a 
far greater affinity between this class of individuals and the 
executive power, than there is between them and the people j 
just as there is a greater natural affinity between the nobles 
and monarch, than between the nobles and the people, although 
the higher orders of society have occasionally resisted the 
prerogative of the crown in concert with the lower classes. 

Lawyers are attached to public order beyond every other 
consideration, and the best security of public order is author¬ 
ity. It must not be forgotten, that if they prize the free in¬ 
stitutions of their country much, they nevertheless value the 
legality of those institutions far more ; they are less afraid of 
tyranny than of arbitrary power \ and provided that the legis- 


278 


CAUSES WHICH MITIGATE THE TYRANNY OF 


lature takes upon itself to deprive men of their independence, 
they are not dissatisfied, (a) 

I am therefore convinced that the prince who, in presence 
of an encroaching democracy, should endeavor to impair the 
judicial authority in his dominions, and to diminish the politi¬ 
cal influence of lawyers, would commit a great mistake. He 
would let slip the substance of authority to grasp at tho 
shadow. He would act more wisely in introducing men con¬ 
nected Avith the law into the government; and if he intrusted 
them with the conduct of a despotic power, bearing some 
marks of violence, that power would most likely assume the 
external features of justice and of legality in their hands. 

The government of democracy is favorable to the political 
power of lawyers ; for when the wealthy, the noble, and the 
prince, are excluded from the government, they are sure to 
occupy the highest stations in their own right, as it w'ere, 
since they are the only men of information and sagacity, be¬ 
yond the sphere of the people, who can be the object of the 
popular choice. If, then, they are led by their tastes to com¬ 
bine with the aristocracy, and to support the crown, they are 
naturally brought into contact with the people by their inte¬ 
rests. They like the government of democracy, without par¬ 
ticipating in its propensities, and without imitating its weak¬ 
nesses ; whence they derive a twofold authority from it and 
over it. The people in democratic states does not mistrust 
the members of the legal profession, because it is well known 
that they are interested' in serving the popular cause ; and it 
listens to them without irritation, because it does not attribute 
to them any sinister designs. The object of laAvyers is not, 
indeed, to overthrow the institutions of democracy, but they 
constantly endeavor to give it an impulse which diverts it 
from its real tendency, by means which are foreign to its 
nature. Lawyers belong to the people by birth and interest, 
to the aristocracy by habit and by taste, and they may bo 
looked upon as the natural bond and connecting link of the 
two great classes of society. 

The profession of the law is the only aristocratic element 

(rt) This translation does not accurately convey the meaning of M. 
de Tocqueville’s expression. He says : “ Ils craignent moins la tyran¬ 
nic que I’arbitraire, et pourvu que le 14gislateur se charge lui-rneme 
d’enlever aux hommes leur ind6pendance, ils sont a peu pres content.” 

The more correct rendering would be : They fear tyranny less than 
arbitrary sway, and provided it is the legislator himself who under¬ 
takes to deprive men of their independence, they are almost content.” 
— Reviser. 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 279 

which can be amalgamated without violence with the natural 
elements of democracy, and which can be advantageously 
and permanently combined with them. I am not unac¬ 
quainted with the defects which are inherent in the character 
of that body of men ; but without this admixture of lawyer¬ 
like sobriety with the democratic principle, I question whether 
democratic institutions could long be maintained; and I can¬ 
not believe that a republic could subsist at the present time, 
if the influence of lawyers in public business did not increase 
in proportion to the power of the people. 

This aristocratic character, which I hold to be common to 
the legal profession, is much more distinctly marked in the 
United States and in England than in any other country. 
This proceeds not only from the legal studies of the English 
and American lawyers, but from the nature of the legislation, 
and the position which those persons occupy, in the two 
countries. The English and the Americans have retained 
the law of precedents; that is to say, they continue to found 
their legal opinions and the decisions of their courts upon the 
opinions and decisions of their forefathers. In the mind of 
an English or an American lawyer, a ta.ste and a reverence 
for what is old are almost always united to a love of regular 
and lawful proceedings. 

This predisposition has another effect upon the character 
of the legal profession and upon the general course of society. 
The English and American lawyers investigate what has 
been done; the French advocate inquires what should have 
been done: the former produces precedents; the latter rea¬ 
sons. A French observer is surprised to hear how often an 
English or American lawyer quotes the opinions of others, 
and how little he alludes to his own; while the reverse oc¬ 
curs in France. There, the most trifling litigation is never 
conducted without the introduction of an entire system of 
ideas peculiar to the counsel employed ; and the fundamental 
principles of law are discussed in order to obtain a perch of 
land by the decision of the court. This abnegation of his 
own opinion, and this implicit deference to the opinion of his 
forefathers, which are common to the English and American 
lawyer, this subjection of thought which he is obliged to pro¬ 
fess, necessarily give him more timid habits and more slug¬ 
gish inclinations in England and America than in France. 

The French codes are often difficult of comprehension, but 
they can be read by every one; nothing, on the other hand, 
can be more impenetrable to the uninitiated than a legisla- 
tion founded upon precedents. The indispensable want of 


280 


CAUSES WHICH MlflUATE THE TYRANNY OF 


legal assistance Which is felt in England and in the United 
States, and the high opinion which is generally entertained 
of the ability of the legal profession, tend to separate it more 
and more from the people, and to place it in a distinct class. 
The French lawyer is simply a man extensively acquainted 
with the statutes of his country; but the English or Ameri¬ 
can lawyer resembles the hierophants of Egypt, for, like 
them, he"is the sole interpreter of an occult science. 

[The remark that English and American lawyers found their opi¬ 
nions and their decisions Upon those of their forefathers, is calculated to 
excite Surprise in an American reader, who supposes that Idn)^ as a 
prescribed rule of action, can only be ascertained in cases where the 
statutes are silent, by reference to the decisions of Courts. On the con¬ 
tinent, and particularly in France, as the Writer of this note learned 
from the Conversation of M. De Tocqueville, the judicial tribunals do 
not deem themselves bound by any precedents, or by any decisions of 
their predecessors or of the appellate tribunals. They respect such 
decisions as the opinions of distinguished men, and they pay no higher 
regard to their own previous adjudications of any case. It is not easy 
to perceive hoW the law can acquire any stability under such a sys¬ 
tem, or hoW any individual can ascertain his rights, without a lawsuit. 
This note should not be Concluded without a single remark Upon what 
the author calls an implicit deference to the opinions of our forefathers, 
and abnegation of our own opinions. The common law consists of 
principles founded on the common sense of mankind, and adapted to 
the circumstances of man in civilized society. When these principles 
are once settled by competent authority, or rather declared by such 
authority, they are supposed to express the common sense and the 
common justice of the community; and it requires but a moderate 
share of modesty for any one entertaining a different view of them, to 
Consider that the disinterested and intelligent judges who have declared 
them, are more likely to be right than he is. Perfection, even in the 
law, he does not Consider attainable by human beings, and the greatest 
approximation to it is all he expects or desires. Besides, there are 
Very few cases of positive and abstract rule, where it is of any conse¬ 
quence which, of any two or more modifications of it, should be adopt¬ 
ed. The great point is, that there should be a rule by which conduct 
may be regulated. Thus, whether in mercantile transactions notice of 
a default by a principal shall be given to an endorser, or a guarantor, 
and when and how such notice shall be given, are not so important 
in themselves, as it is that there should be some rule to which mer¬ 
chants may adapt themselves and their transactions. Statutes cannot 
or at least do not, prescribe the rules in a large majority of cases. If 
then they are not drawn from the decision of courts, they will not ex¬ 
ist, and men Will be wholly at a loss for a guide in the most important 
transactions of business. Hence the deference paid to legal decisions. 
But this is not implicit, as the author supposes. The course of rea¬ 
soning by which the courts have come to their conclusions, is often 
assailed by the advocate and shown to be fallacious, and the instances 
are not unfrequent of courts disregarding prior decisions and over¬ 
ruling them when not fairly deducible from sound reason. 

Again, the principles of the common law are flexible, and adapt 
themselves to changes in society, and a well-known maxim in our sys- 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 281 

tem, that when the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases, has 
overthrown many an antiquated rule. Within these limits, it is con¬ 
ceived that there is range enough for the exercise of all the reason of 
the advocate and the judge, without unsettling everything and depriv¬ 
ing the conduct ot human afl'airs of all guidance from human author¬ 
ity ;—and the talent of our lawyers and courts finds sufficient exercise 
in applying the principles of one case to facts of another.—./fwertca/i 
Editor.'] 

The station which lawyers occupy in England and Ameri- 
ca exercises no less an influence upon their habits and their 
opinions. The English aristocracy, which has taken care to 
attract to its sphere whatever is at all analogous to itself, has 
conferred a high degree of importance and of authority upon 
the members of the legal profession. In English society 
lawyers do not occupy the first rank, but they are contented 
with the station assigned to them ; they constitute, as it were, 
the younger branch of the English aristocracy, and they are 
attached to their elder brothers, although they do not enjoy 
all their privileges. The English lawyers consequently 
mingle the tastes and the ideas of the aristocratic circles in 
which they move, with the aristocratic interest of their pro¬ 
fession. 

And indeed the lawyer-like character which I am endea¬ 
voring to depict, is most distinctly to be met with in England : 
there laws are esteemed not so much because they are good, 
as because they are old ; and if it be necessary to modify 
them in any respect, or to adapt them to the changes which 
time operates in society, recourse is had to the most incon¬ 
ceivable contrivances in order to uphold the traditionary 
fabric, and to maintain that nothing has been done which 
does not square with the intentions, and complete the labors, 
of former generations. The very individuals who conduct 
these changes disclaim all intention of innovation, and they 
had rather resort to absurd expedients than plead guilty of so 
great a crime. This spirit more especially appertains to the 
English lawyers; they seem indifferent to the real meaning 
of what they treat, and they direct all their attention to the 
letter, seeming inclined to infringe the rules of common sense 
and of humanity, rather than to swerve one tittle from the 
law. The English legislation may be compared to the stock 
of an old tree, upon which lawyers have engrafted the most 
various shoots, with the hope, that, although their fruits may 
differ, their foliage at least will be confounded with the ven¬ 
erable trunk which supports them all. 

In America there are no nobles or literary men, and the 
people is apt to mistrust the wealthy; lawyers consequently 
25 * 


282 


CAUSES WHICH MITIGATE THE ITRANNY OF 


form the highest political class, and the most cultivated circle 
of society. They have therefore nothing to gain by innova¬ 
tion, which adds a conservative interest to their natural taste 
for public order. If I were asked where I place the Ameri¬ 
can aristocracy, I should reply without hesitation, that it is 
not composed of the rich, who are united together by no com¬ 
mon tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the bar. 

The more we reflect upon all that occurs in the United 
States, the more shall we be persuaded that the lawyers, as 
a body, form the most powerful, if not the.,only counterpoise 
to the democratic element. ' In that country we perceive how 
eminently the legal profession is qualified by its powers, and 
even by its defects, to neutralize the vices which are in¬ 
herent in popular government. When the American people 
is intoxicated by passion, or carried away by the impetuosity 
of its ideas, it is checked and stopped by the almost invisible 
influence of its legal counsellors, who secretly oppose their 
aristocratic propensities to its democratic instincts, their su¬ 
perstitious attachment to what is antique to its love of novel¬ 
ty, their narrow views to its immense designs, and their ha¬ 
bitual procrastination to its ardent impatience. 

The courts of justice are the most visible organs by which 
the legal profession is enabled to control the democracy. The 
judge is a lawyer, who, independently of the taste for regu¬ 
larity and order which he has contracted in the study of 
legislation, derives an additional love of stability from his 
own inalienable functions. His legal attainments have al¬ 
ready raised him to a distinguished rank among his fellow- 
citizens ; his political power completes the distinction of his 
station, and gives him the inclinations natural to privileged 
classes. 

Armed with the power of declaring the laws to be uncon¬ 
stitutional,* the American magistrate perpetually interferes 
in political affairs. He cannot force the people to make laws, 
but at least he can oblige it not to disobey its own enactments, 
or to act inconsistently with its own principles. I am aware 
that a secret tendency to diminish the judicial power exists 
in the United States ; and by most of the constitutions of the 
several states, the government can, upon the demand of the 
two houses of the legislature, remove the judges from their 
station. By some other constitutions the members of the 
tribunals are elected, and they are even subjected to frequent 

* See chapter vi., p. 94, on the judicial power in the United 
States. - i 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 


283 


re-elections. I venture to predict that these innovations 
will sooner or later be attended with fatal consequences; and 
that it will be found out at some future period, that the at¬ 
tack which is made upon the judicial power has affected the 
democratic republic itself. 

It must not, however, be supposed that the legal spirit of 
which I have been speaking has been confined in the United 
States to the courts of justice; it extends far beyond them. 
As the lawyers constitute the only enlightened class which 
the people does not mistrust, they are naturally called upon to 
occupy most of the public stations. They fill the legislative 
assemblies, and they conduct the administration ; they con¬ 
sequently exercise a powerful influence upon the formation 
of the law, and upon its execution. The lawyers are, how¬ 
ever, obliged to yield to the current of public opinion, which 
is too strong for them to resist it; but it is easy to find indi¬ 
cations of what their conduct would be, if they were free to 
act as they chose. The Americans who have made such 
copious innovations in their political legislation, have intro¬ 
duced very sparing alterations in their civil laws, and that 
with great difficulty, although those laws are frequently re¬ 
pugnant to their social condition. The reason of this is, that 
in matters of civil law the majority is obliged to defer to the 
authority of the legal profession, and that the American law¬ 
yers are disinclined to innovate when they are left to their 
own choice. 

It is curious for a Frenchman, accustomed to a very dif¬ 
ferent state of things, to hear the perpetual complaints which 
are made in the United States, against the stationary propen¬ 
sities of legal men, and their prejudices in favor of existing 
institutions. 

The influence of the legal habits which are common in 
America extends beyond the limits I have just pointed out. 
Scarcely any question arises in the United States which does 
not become, sooner or later, a subject of judicial debate; 
hence all parties are obliged to borrow the ideas, and even 
the language, usual in judicial proceedings, in their daily 
controversies. As most public men are, or have been, legal 
practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities 
of their profession into the affairs of the country. The jury 
extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the 
law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue ; the 
spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts 
of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the 
bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so 


284 


CAUSES WHICH MITIGATE THE TYRANNY OF 


that the whole people contracts the habits and the tastes of 
the magistrate. The lawyers of the United States form a 
party which is but little feared and scarcely perceived, which 
has no badge peculiar to itself, which adapts itself with great 
flexibility to the exigencies of the time, and accommodates 
itself to all the movements of the social body: but this party 
extends over the whole community, and it penetrates into all 
classes of society; it acts upon the country imperceptibly, 
but it finally fashions it to suit its purposes. 


TRIAL BY JURY IN THE UNITED STATES CONSIDERED AS A 
POLITICAL INSTITUTION. 

Trial by Jury, which is one of the Instruments of tlie Sovereignty of 
the People, deserves to be compared with the other Laws which 
establish that sovereignty.—Composition of the Jury in the United 
States.—Effect of Trial by Jury upon the national Character.—It 
educates the People.—It tends to establish the Authority of the Ma¬ 
gistrates, and to extend a knowledge of Law among the People. 

Since I have been led by my subject to recur to the adminis¬ 
tration of justice in the United States, I will not pass over 
this point without adverting to the institution of the jury. 
Trial by jury may be considered in two separate points of 
view : as a judicial, and as a political institution. If it en¬ 
tered into my present purpose to inquire how far trial by jury 
(more especially in civil cases) contributes to ensure the best 
administration of justice, I admit that its utility might be 
contested. As the jury was first introduced at a time when 
society was in an uncivilized state, and when courts of jus¬ 
tice were merely called upon to decide on the evidence of 
facts, it is not an easy task to adapt it to the wants of a 
highly civilized community, when the mutual relations of men 
are multiplied to a surprising extent, and have assumed the 
enlightened and intellectual character of the age.* 

* The investiption of trial by jury as a judicial institution, and the 
appreciation of its effects in the United States, together with the ad-^ 
vantages the Americans have derived from it, would suffice to form a 
book, and a book upon a very useful and curious subject. The state of 
Louisiana would in particular afford the curious phenomenon of a 
French and English legislation, as well as a French and English 
population, which are generally combining with each other. See the 
“ Digeste des Lois de la Louisiane,” in two volumes ; and the “ Traite 
sur les Regies des Actions civiles,” printed in French and English at 
New Orleans in 1830. 



THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 


285 


My present object is to consider the jury as a political in- 
stitution ; and any other course would divert me from my 
subject. Of trial by jury, considered as a judicial institution, 
I shall here say but very few words. When the English 
adopted trial by jury they were a semi-barbarous people ; 
they are-become, in course of time, one of the most enlightened 
nations of the earth; and their attachment to this institution 
seems to have increased with their increasing cultivation. 
They soon spread beyond their insular boundaries to every 
corner of the habitable globe ; some have formed colonies, 
others independent states; the mother-country has maintained 
its monarchical constitution; many of its offspring have 
founded powerful republics; but wherever the English have 
been, they have boasted of the privilege of trial by jury.* 
They have established it, or hastened to re-establish it, in all 
their settlements. A judicial institution which obtains the 
suffrages of a great people for so long a series of ages, which 
is zealously renewed at every epoch of civilisation, in all the 
climates of the earth, and under every form of human 
government, cannot be contrary to the spirit of justice.f 

* All the English and American jurists are unanimous upon this 
head. Mr. Story, judge of the supreme court of the United States, 
speaks, in his treatise on the federal constitution, of the advantages of 
trial by jury in civil cases: “The inestimable privilege of a trial by 
jury in civil cases—a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal 
cases, which is counted by all persons to be essential to political and 
civil liberty”.(Story, book iii., ch. xxxviii.) 

t If it were our province to point out the utility of the jury as a 
judicial institution in this place, much might be said, and the follow¬ 
ing arguments might be brought forward among others:— 

By introducing the jury into the business of the courts, you are ena¬ 
bled to diminish the number of judges ; which is a very great advan¬ 
tage. When judges are very numerous, death is perpetually thinning 
the ranks of the judicial functionaries, and laying places vacant for new 
comers. The ambition of the magistrates is therefore continually ex¬ 
cited, and they are naturally made dependant upon the will of the ma¬ 
jority, or the individual who fills up vacant appointments : the officers 
of the courts then rise like the officers of an army. This state of things 
is entirely contrary to the sound administration of justice, and to the in¬ 
tentions of the legislator. The office of a judge is made inalienable in 
order that he may remain independent; but of what advantage is it that 
his independence is protected, if he be tempted to sacrifice it of his 
own accord ? When judges are very numerous, many of them must 
necessarily be incapable of performing their important duties ; for a 
great magistrate is a man of no common powers: and I am inclined to 
believe that a half enlightened tribunal is the worst of all instruments 
for obtaining those objects which it is the purpose of courts of justice 
to accomplish. For my own part, I had rather submit the decision of 
a case to ignorant jurors directed by a skilful judge, than to judges, a 



286 


CAUSES WHICH MITIGATE THE TYRANNY OF 


I turn, however, from this part of the subject. To look 
upon the jury as a mere judicial institution, is to confine our 
attention to a very narrow view of i^ for, however great its 
influence may be upon the decisioiis of the law-courts, that 
influence is very subordinate to the powerful effects which it 
produces on the destinies of the community at large. The 
jury is above all a political institution, and it must be regarded 
in this light in order to be duly appreciated. 

By the jury, I mean a certain number of citizens chosen 
indiscriminately, and invested with a temporary right of judg¬ 
ing. Trial by jury, as applied to the repression of crime, 
appears to me to introduce an eminently republican element 
into the government, upon the following grounds :— 

The institution of the jury may be aristocratic or demo¬ 
cratic, according to the class of society from which the jurors 
are selected ; but it always preserves its republican charac¬ 
ter, inasmuch as it places the real direction of society in the 
hands of the governed, or of a portion of the governed, instead 
of leaving it under the authority of the government. Force 
is never more than a transient element of success; and 
after force comes the notion of right. A government which 
should only be able to crush its enemies upon a field of battle, 
would very soon be destroyed. The true sanction of political 
laws is to be found in penal legislation, and if that sanction 
be wanting, the law will sooner or later lose its cogency. He 
who punishes infractions of the law is therefore the real mas¬ 
ter of society. Now, the institution of the jury raises the 
people itself, or at least a class of citizens, to the bench of ju¬ 
dicial authority. The institution of the jury consequently 
invests the people, or that class of citizens, with the direction 
of society.* 

majority of whom are imperfectly acquainted with jurisprudence and 
with the laws. 

[I venture to remind the reader, lest this note should appear some¬ 
what redundant to an English eye, that the jury is an institution which 
has only been naturalized in France within the present century ; that 
it is even now exclusively applied to those criminal causes which come 
before the courts of assize, or to the prosecutions of the public press ; 
and that the judges and counsellors of the numerous local tribunals of 
France—forming a body of many thousand judicial functionaries—try 
all civil causes, appeals from criminal causes, and minor offences, 
without the jury.— Translator^s JVh/e.] 

* An important remark must however be made. Trial by jury does 
unquestionably invest the people with a general control over the actions 
of citizens, but it does not furnish means of exercising this control in 
all cases, or with an absolute authority. When an absolute monarch 
has the right of trying offences by his representatives, the fate of the 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 


287 


In England the jury is returned from the aristocratic por¬ 
tion of the nation,* the aristocracy makes the laws, applies the 
laws, and punishes all infractions of the laws ; everything is 
established upon a consistent footing, and England may with 
truth be said to constitute an aristocratic republic. In the 
United States the same system is applied to the whole people. 
Every American citizen is qualified to be an elector, a juror, 
and is eligible to office.f The system of the jury, as it is 
understood in America, appears to me to be as direct and as 
extreme a consequence of the sovereignty of the people, as 
universal suffrage. These institutions are two instruments 
of equal power, which contribute to the supremacy of the 
majority. All the sovereigns who have chosen to govern by 
their own authority, and to direct society instead of obeying 
its direction, have destroyed or enfeebled the institution of the 
jury. The monarchs of the house of Tudor sent to prison 
jurors who refused to convict, and Napoleon caused them to 
be returned by his agents. 

However clear most of these truths may seem to be, they 
do not command universal assent, and in France, at least, the 
institution of trial by jury is still very imperfectly understood. 
If the question arise as to the proper qualification of jurors, it 
is confined to a discussion of the intelligence and knowledge 
of the citizens who may be returned, as if the jury was 
merely a judicial institution. This appears to me to be the 
least part of the subject. The jury is pre-eminently a politi¬ 
cal institution; it must be regarded as one form of the sove¬ 
reignty of the people; when that sovereignty is repudiated, 
it must be rejected; or it must be adapted to the laws by 

prisoner is, as it were, decided beforehand. But even if the people 
were predisposed to convict, the composition and the non-responsibility 
of the jury would still afford some chances favorable to the protection 
of innocence. 

* [In France, the qualification of the jurors is the same as the elec¬ 
toral qualification, namely, the payment of 200 francs per annum in 
direct taxes : they are chosen by lot. In England they are returned by 
the sheriff; the qualifications of jurors were raised to 10/. per annum 
in England, and 61. in Wales, of freehold land or copyhold, by the 
statute W. and M.,c. 24: leaseholders fora time determinable upon 
life or lives, of the clear yearly value of 20/. per annum over and above 
the rent reserved, are qualified to serve on juries; and jurors in the 
courts of Westminster and city of London must be householders, and 
possessed of real and personal estates of the value of 100/. The quali¬ 
fications, however, prescribed in different statutes, vary according to 
the object for which the jury is impannelled. See Blackstone’s Com¬ 
mentaries, b. iii., c. 23.— Translator's JVote.'] 

t See Appendix Q. 






2B8 


CAUSES WHICH MITIGATE THE TYRANNY OF 


which that sovereignty is established. The jury is that por¬ 
tion of the nation to which the execution of the laws is 
intrusted, as the houses of parliament constitute that part of 
the nation which makes the laws; and in order that society 
may be governed with consistency and uniformity, the list of 
citizens qualified to serve on juries must increase and diminish 
with the list of electors. This I hold to be the point of view 
most worthy of the attention of the legislator; and all that 
remains is merely accessary. 

I am so entirely convinced that the jury is pre-eminently a 
political institution, that I still consider it in this light when it 
is applied in civil causes. Laws are always unstable unless 
they are founded upon the manners of a nation: manners are 
the only durable and resisting power in a people. When the 
jury is reserved for criminal offences, the people only sees its 
occasional action in certain particular cases ; the ordinary 
course of life goes on without its interference, and it is con¬ 
sidered as an instrument, but not as the only instrument, of 
obtaining justice. This is true d fortiori when the jury is only 
applied to certain criminal causes. 

When, on the contrary, the influence of the jury is extend¬ 
ed to civil causes, its application is constantly palpable; it 
affects all the interests of the community ; every one co-ope¬ 
rates in its work : it thus penetrates into all the usages of life, 
it fashions the human mind to its peculiar forms, and is gradu¬ 
ally associated with the idea of justice itself. 

The institution of the jury, if confined to criminal causes, 
is always in danger; but when once it is introduced into civil 
proceedings, it defies the aggressions of time and of man. If 
it had been as easy to remove the jury from the manners as 
from the laws of England, it would have perished under 
Henry VIII. and Elizabeth ; and the civil jury did in reality, 
at that period, save the liberties of the country. In whatever 
manner the jury be applied, it cannot fail to exercise a power¬ 
ful influence upon the national character ; but this influence 
is prodigiously increased when it is introduced into civil 
causes. The jury, and more especially the civil jury, serves 
to communicate the spirit of the judges to the minds of all 
the citizens; and this spirit, with the habits which attend it, 
is the soundest preparation for free institutions. It imbues all 
classes with a respect for the thing judged, and with the no¬ 
tion of right. If these two elements be removed, the love of 
independence is reduced to a mere destructive passion. It 
teaches men to practise equity ; every man learns to judge 
his neighbor as he would himself be judged ; and this is espe- 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 


289 


cially true of the jury in civil causes ; for, while the number 
of persons who have reason to apprehend a criminal prosecu¬ 
tion is small, every one is liable to have a civil action brought 
against him. The jury teaches every man not to recoil be¬ 
fore the responsibility of his own actions, and impresses him 
with that manly confidence without which political virtue 
cannot exist. It invests each citizen with a kind of magis¬ 
tracy ; it makes them ail feel the duties which they are bound 
to discharge toward society; and the part which they take 
in the government. By obliging men to turn their attention 
to affairs which are not exclusively their own, it rubs off that 
individual egotism which is the rust of society. 

The jury contributes most powerfully to form the«judg- 
ment, and to increase the natural intelligence of a people ; 
and this is, in my opinion, its greatest advantage. It may be 
regarded as a gratuitous public school ever open, in which 
every juror learns to exercise his rights, enters into daily 
communication with the most learned and enlightened mem¬ 
bers of the upper classes, and becomes practically acquainted 
with the laws of his country, which are brought within the 
reach of his capacity by the efforts of the bar, the advice of 
the judge, and even by the passions of the parties. I think 
that the practical intelligence and political good sense of the 
Americans are mainly attributable to the long use which they 
have made of the jury in civil causes. 

I do not know whether the jury is useful to those who are 
in litigation ; but I am certain it is highly beneficial to those 
who decide the litigation : and I look upon it as one of the 
most efficacious means for the education of the people, which 
society can employ. 

What I have hitherto said, applies to all nations; but the 
remark I am now about to make, is peculiar to the Americans 
and to democratic peoples. I have already observed that in 
democracies the members of the legal profession, and the ma¬ 
gistrates, constitute the only aristocratic body which can check 
the irregularities of the people. This aristocracy is invested 
with no physical power; but it exercises its conservative in¬ 
fluence upon the minds of men: and the most abundant 
source of its authority is the institution of the civil jury. In 
criminal causes, when society is armed against a single indi¬ 
vidual, the jury is apt to look upon the judge as the passive 
instrument of social power, and to mistrust his advice. 
Moreover, criminal causes are entirely founded upon the evi¬ 
dence of facts which common sense can readily appreciate; 
upon this ground the judge and the jury are equal. Such, 
26 


290 CAUSES -WHICH MITIGATE THE TYRANNY OF 

however, is not the case in civil causes; then the judge aj>- 
poars as a disinterested arbiter between the conflicting pas¬ 
sions of the parties. The jurors look up to him with con ft- 
dence, and listen to him with respect, for in this instance their 
intelligence is completely under the control of his leamkig. 
It is the judge who sums up the various arguments with 
which their iTiemory has been wearied out, and who guides 
them through the devious course of the proceedings; he 
points their attention to the exact question of fact, which they 
are called upon to solve, and he puts the answer to the ques¬ 
tion of law into their mouths. His influence upon their ver¬ 
dict is almost unlimited. 

If I am called upon to explain why I am but little moved 
by the arguments derived from the ignorance of jurors in civil 
causes, I reply, that in these proceedings, whenever the ques¬ 
tion to be solved is not a mere question of fact, the jury has 
only the semblance of a judicial body. The jury sanctions 
the decisions of the judge ; they, by the authority of society 
which they represent, and he, by that of reason and of law.* 

In England and in America the judges exercise an influ¬ 
ence upon criminal trials which the French judges have ne¬ 
ver possessed. The reason of this difference may easky be 
discovered ; the English and American magistrates establish 
their authority in civil causes, and only transfer it afterward 
to tribunals of another kind, where that authority was not ac¬ 
quired. In some cases (and they are frequently the most im¬ 
portant ones), the American judges have the right of deciding 
causes alone.f Upon these occasions they are, accidentally, 
placed in the position which the French judges habitually 
occupy : but they are still surrounded by the reminiscence of 
the jury, and their judgment has almost as much authority 
as the voice of the community at large, represented by that 
institution. Their influence extends beyond the limits of the 
courts; in the recreations of private life, as well as in the 
turmoil of public business, abroad and in the legislative as¬ 
semblies, the American judge is constantly surrounded by 
men who are accustomed to regard his intelligence as supe¬ 
rior to their own; and after having exercised his power in 
the decision of causes, he continues to influence the habits of 
thought, and the character of the individuals who took a part 
in his judgment. 

* See Appendix R. 

t The federal judges decide upon their own authority almost all the 
questions most important to the country. 


THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES. 


291 


[The remark in the text, that “ in some cases, and they are frequent¬ 
ly the most important ones, the American judges have the right of de¬ 
ciding causes alone,” and the author’s note, that “ the federal judges de¬ 
cide, upon their own authority, almost all the questions most import¬ 
ant to the country,” seem to require explanation in consequence of 
their connexion with the context in which the author is speaking of 
the trial by jury. They seem to imply that there are some cases which 
ought to be tried by jury, that are decided by the judges. It is believed 
that the learned author, although a distinguished advocate in France, 
never thoroughly comprehended the ^and divisions of our complicated 
system of law, in civil cases. First, is the distinction between cases 
in equity and those in which the rules of the common law govern.— 
Those in equity are always decided by the judge or judges, who may, 
however, send questions of fact to be tried in the common law courts 
by a jury. But as a general rule this is entirely in the discretion of 
the equity judge. Second, in cases at common law, there are ques¬ 
tions of fact and questions of law :—the former are invariably tried by 
a jury, the latter, whether presented in the course of a jury trial, or 
by pleading, in which the facts are admitted, are always decided by 
the judges. 

Third, cases of admiralty jurisdiction, and proceedings fn remoi an 
analogous nature, are decided by the judges without the intervention 
of a jury. The cases in this last class fall within the peculiar jurisdic¬ 
tion of the federal courts, and, with this exception, the federal judges 
do not decide upon their own authority any questions, which, if pre¬ 
sented in the state courts, would not also be decided by the judges of 
those courts. The supreme court of the United States, from the na¬ 
ture of its institution as almost wholly an appellant court, is called on 
to decide merely questions of law, and in no case can that court decide 
a question of fact, unless it arises in suits peculiar to equity or admi¬ 
ralty jurisdiction. Indeed the author’s original note is more correct 
than the translation. It is as follows : “ Les juges federaux tranchent 
presque toujours seuls les questions qui touchent de plus pres au gou- 
vernement du pays.” And it is very true that the supreme court of the 
United States, in particular, decides those questions which most nearly 
affect the government of the country, because those are the very ques¬ 
tions which arise upon the constitutionality of the laws of congress 
and of the several states, the final and conclusive determination of 
which is vested in that tribunal —American Editor. 

The jury, then, which seems to restrict the rights of magis¬ 
tracy, does in reality consolidate its power; and in no coun¬ 
try are the judges so powerful as there where the people par¬ 
takes their privileges. It is more especially by means of the 
jury in civil causes that the^American magistrates imbue all 
classes of society with the spirit of their profession. Thus 
the jury, which is the most energetic means of making the 
people rule, is also the most efficacious means of teaching it 
to rule well. 


292 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


CHAPTER XVIT. 

PRINCIPAL CAUSES WHICH TEND TO MAINTAIN THE DEMOCRA¬ 
TIC REPUBLIC IN THE UNITED STATES. 

A DEMOCRATIC rcpubUc subsists in the United States ; and 
the principal object of this book has been to account for the 
fact of its existence. Several of the causes which contribute 
to maintain the institutions of America have been voluntarily 
passed by, or only hinted at, as I was borne along by my 
subject. Others I have been unable to discuss ; and those 
on which I have dwelt most, are, as it were, buried in the 
details of the former part of this work. 

I think, therefore, that before I proceed to speak of the 
future, I cannot do better than collect within a small com¬ 
pass the reasons which best explain the present. In this 
retrospective chapter I shall be succinct; for I shall take 
care to remind the reader very summarily of what he already 
knows; and I shall only select the most prominent of those 
facts which I have not yet pointed out. 

All the causes which contribute to the maintenance of the 
democratic republic in the United States are reducible to 
three heads: 

I. The peculiar and accidental situation in which Provi¬ 
dence has placed the Americans. 

II. The laws. 

III. The manners and customs of the people. 


ACCIDENTAL OR PROVIDENTIAL CAUSES WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO 
THE MAINTENANCE OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC IN THE 
UNITED STATES. 

The Union has no Neighbors.—No Metropolis.—The Americans have 
had the Chances of Birth in their favor.—America an empty coun¬ 
try.—How this circumstance contributes powerfully to the Mainte¬ 
nance of the democratic Republic in America.—How the American 
Wilds are Peopled.—Avidity of the Anglo-Americans in taking Pos¬ 
session of the Solitudes of the New World.—Influence of physical 
Prosperity upon the political Opinions of tlie Americans. 

A THOUSAND circumstances, independent of the will of man, 
concur to facilitate the maintenance of a democratic republic 
in the United States. Some of these peculiarities are known, 



THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


293 


the others may easily be pointed out; but I shall confine 
myself to the most prominent among them. 

The Americans have no neighbors, and consequently they 
have no great wars, or financial crises, or inroads, or con¬ 
quests to dread; they require neither great taxes, nor great 
armies, nor great generals; and they have nothing to fear 
from a scourge which is more formidable to republics than 
all these evils combined, namely, military glory. It is im¬ 
possible to deny the inconceivable influence which military 
glory exercises upon the spirit of a nation. General Jack- 
son, whom the Americans have twice elected to be the head 
of their government, is a man of violent temper and mediocre 
talents; no one circumstance in the whole course of his ca¬ 
reer ever proved that he is qualified to govern a free people ; 
and indeed the majority of the enlightened classes of the 
Union has always been opposed to him. But he was raised 
to the presidency, and has been maintained in that lofty sta¬ 
tion, solely by the recollection of a victory which he gained, 
twenty years ago, under the walls of New Orleans; a victory 
which was, however, a very ordinary achievement, and 
which could only be remembered in a country where battles 
are rare. Now the people who are thus carried away by the 
illusions of glory, are unquestionably the most cold and cal¬ 
culating, the most unmilitary (if I may use the expression), 
and the most prosaic of all the peoples of the earth. 

America has no great capital city,* whose influence is di- 

* The United States have no metropolis; but they already contain 
several very large cities. Philadelphia reckoned 161,000 inhabitants, 
and New York 202,000, in the year 1830. The lower orders which in¬ 
habit these cities constitute a rabble even more formidable than the 
populace of European towns. They consist of freed blacks in the first 
place, who are condemned by the laws and by public opinion, to an 
hereditary state of misery and degradation. They also contain a mul¬ 
titude of Europeans who have been driven to the shores of the New 
World by their misfortunes or their misconduct; and these men inocu¬ 
late the United States with all our vices, without bringing with them 
any of those interests which counteract their baneful influence. As 
inhabitants of a country where they have no civil rights, they are ready 
to turn all the passions which agitate the community to their own ad¬ 
vantage ; thus, within the last few months serious riots have broken 
out in Philadelphia and in New York. Disturbances of this kind are 
unknown in the rest of the country, which is nowise alarmed by them, 
because the population of the cities has hitherto exercised neither 
power nor influence over the rural districts. 

Nevertheless, I look upon the size of certain American cities, and 
especially on the nature of their population, as a real danger which 
threatens the future security of the democratic'republics of the New 
World: and I venture to predict that they will perish from this cir- 
26 * 





294 


CAUSES TENDING TO BIAINTAIN 


rectly or indirectly felt over the whole extent of the country, 
which I hold to be one of the first causes of the maintenance 
of republican institutions in the United States. In cities, men 
cannot be prevented from concerting together, and from 
awakening a mutual excitement which prompts sudden and 
passionate resolutions. Cities may be looked upon as large 
assemblies, of which all the inhabitants are members ; their 
populace exercises a prodigious influence upon the magis¬ 
trates, and frequently executes its own wishes without their 
intervention. 

To subject the provinces to the metropolis, is therefore not 
only to place the destiny of the empire in the hands of a por¬ 
tion of the community, which may be reprobated as unjust, 
but to place it in the hands of a populace acting under its 
own impulses, which must be avoided as dangerous. The 
preponderance of capital cities is therefore a serious blow 
upon the representative system; and it exposes modern re¬ 
publics to the same defect as the republics of antiquity, which 
all perished from not being acquainted with that system. 

It would be easy for me to adduce a great number of se¬ 
condary causes which have contributed to establish, and 
which concur to maintain, the democratic republic of the 
United States. But I discern two principal circumstances 
among these favorable elements, which I hasten to point out. 
I have already observed that the origin of the American set¬ 
tlements may be looked upon as the first and most efficacious 
cause to which the present prosperity of the United States 
may be attributed. The Americans had the chances of birth 
in their favor; and their forefathers imported that equality 
of conditions into the country, whence the democratic repub¬ 
lic has very naturally taken its rise. Nor was this all they 
did; for besides this republican condition of society, the early 
settlers bequeathed to their descendants those customs, man- 
ners, and opinions, which contribute most to the success of a 
republican form of government. When I reflect upon the 
consequences of this primary circumstance, methinks I see 
the destiny of America embodied in the first puritan who 
landed on those shores, just as the human race was repre¬ 
sented by the first man. 

The chief circumstance which has favored the establish- 
rr;ent and the maintenance of a democratic republic in the 

cutnstance, unless the government succeed in creating an armed force, 
which, while it remains under the control of the majority of the na¬ 
tion, will be independent of the town population, and able to repress 
its excesses. 


THE DEMOCRATIC RKFOBLIC, 


295 


the United States, is the nature of the territory which the 
Americans inhabit. Their ancestors gave them the love of 
equality and of freedom: but God himself gave them the 
means of remaining equal and free, by placing them upon a 
boundless continent, which is open to their exertions. Ge- 
neral prosperity is favorable to the stability of all governments, 
but more particularly of a democratic constitution, which 
depends upon the disposition of the majority, and more par¬ 
ticularly of that portion of the community which is most ex¬ 
posed to feel the pressure of want. When the people rules, 
it must be rendered happy, or it will overturn the state: and 
misery is apt to stimulate it to those excesses to which ambi¬ 
tion rouses kings. The physical causes, independent of the 
laws, which contribute to promote general prosperity, are 
more numerous in America than they have ever been in any 
other country in the world, at any other period of history. 

In the United States, not only is legislation democratic, but 
nature herself favors the cause of the people. 

In what part of human tradition can be found anything at 
all similar to that which is occurring under our eyes in North 
America ? The celebrated communities of antiquity were 
all founded in the midst of hostile nations, which they were 
obliged to subjugate before they could flourish in their place. 
Even the moderns have found, in some parts of South Amer¬ 
ica, vast regions inhabited by a people of inferior civilisation, 
but which occupied and cultivated the soil. To found their 
new states, it was necessary to extirpate or to subdue a nu¬ 
merous population, until civilisation has been made to blush 
for their success. But North America was only inhabited 
by wandering tribes, who took no thought of the natural 
riches of the soil: and that vast country was still, properly 
speaking, an empty continent, a desert land awaiting its in¬ 
habitants. 

Everything is extraordinary in America, the social condi¬ 
tion of the inhabitants, as well as the laws ; but the soil upon 
which these institutions are founded is more extraordinary 
than all the rest. When man was first placed upon the 
earth by the Creator, that earth was inexhaustible in its 
youth ; but man was weak and ignorant: and when he had 
learned to explore the treasures which it contained, hosts of 
his fellow-creatures covered its surface, and he was obliged 
to earn an asylum for repose and for freedom by the sword. 

At that same period North America was discovered, as if it ^ 
had been kept in reserve by the Deity, and had just risen 
from beneath the waters of the deluge. / 


296 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


That continent still presents, as it did in the primeval time, 
rivers which rise from never-failing sources, green and moist 
solitudes, and fields which the ploughshare of the husband¬ 
man has never turned. In this state it is offered to man, not 
in the barbarous and isolated condition of the early ages, but 
to a being who is already in possession of the most potent 
secrets of the natural world, who is united to his fellow-men, 
and instructed by the experience of fifty centuries. At this 
very time thirteen millions of civilized Europeans are peace¬ 
ably spreading over those fertile plains, with whose resources 
and whose extent they are not yet accurately acquainted. 
Three or four thousand soldiers drive the wandering races of 
the aborigines before them ; these are followed by the pio¬ 
neers, who pierce the woods, scare off the beasts of prey, 
explore the courses of the inland streams, and make ready 
the triumphal procession of civilisation across the waste. 

The favorable influence of the temporal prosperity of Ame¬ 
rica upon the institutions of that country has been so often 
described by others, and adverted to by myself, that I shall 
not enlarge upon it beyond the addition of a few facts. An 
erroneous notion is generally entertained, that the deserts of 
America are peopled by European emigrants, who annually 
disembark upon the coasts of the New World, while the Ame¬ 
rican population increases and multiplies upon the soil which 
its forefathers tilled. The European settler, however, usu¬ 
ally arrives in the United States without friends, and some¬ 
times without resources; in order to subsist he is obliged to 
work for hire, and he rarely proceeds beyond that belt of in- 
dustrious population which adjoins the ocean. The desert 
cannot be explored without capital or credit, and the body 
must be accustomed to the rigors of a new climate before it 
can be exposed to the chances of forest life. It is the Ame¬ 
ricans themselves who daily quit the spots which gave them 
hirth, to acquire extensive domains in a remote country. 
Thus the European leaves his country for the transatlantic 
shores ; and the American, who is born on that very coast, 
plunges into the wilds of central America. This double 
emigration is incessant: it begins in the remotest parts of 
Europe, it crosses the Atlantic ocean, and it advances over 
the solitudes of the New World. Millions of men are march¬ 
ing at once toward the same horizon ; their language, their 
religion, their manners differ, their object is the same. The 
gifts of fortune are promised in the west, and to the west they 
bend their course. 

No event can be compared with this continuous removal 


THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


297 


of the human race, except perhaps those irruptions which 
preceded the fall of the Roman Empire. Then, as well as 
now, generations of men were impelled forward in the same 
direction to meet and struggle on the same spot; but the de¬ 
signs of Providence were not the same ; then, every new 
comer was the harbinger of destruction and of death ; now, 
every adventurer brings with him the elements of prosperity 
and of life. The future still conceals from us the ulterior^ 
consequences of this emigration of the American toward the 
west; but we can hardly apprehend its more immediate re¬ 
sults. As a portion of the inhabitants annually leave the 
states in which they were born, the population of these states 
increases very slowly, although they have long been esta-^ 
blished : thus in Connecticut, which only contains 59 inhabit-'^ 
ants to the square mile, the population has not been increased 
by more than one quarter in forty years, while that of Eng¬ 
land has been augmented by one third in the lapse of the 
same period. The European emigrant always lands, there¬ 
fore, in a country which is but half full, and where hands 
are in request: he becomes a workman in easy circumstan¬ 
ces ; his son goes to seek his fortune in unpeopled regions, 
and he becom3s a rich landowner. The former amasses the 
capital which the latter invests, and the stranger as well as 
the native is unacquainted with want. 

The laws of the United States are extremely favorable to 
the division of property ; but a cause which is more powerful 
than the laws prevents property from being divided to excess.* 
This is very perceptible in the states which are beginning to 
be thickly peopled ; Massachusetts is the most populous part 
of the Union, but it contains only 80 inhabitants to the square 
mile, which is much less than in France, where 162 are 
reckoned to the same extent of country. But in Massachu¬ 
setts estates are very rarely divided; the eldest son takes 
the land, and the others go to seek their fortune in the desert. 
The law has abolished the right of primogeniture, but cir¬ 
cumstances have concurred to re-establish it under a form of 
wliich none can complain, and by which no just rights are 
impaired. 

A single fact will suffice to show the prodigious number of 
individuals who leave New England, in this manner, to set¬ 
tle themselves in the wilds. We were assured in 1830, that 
thirty-six of the members of congress were born in the little 

* In New England the estates are exceedingly small, but they are 
rarely subjected to farther division. 


298 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


state of Connecticut. The population of Connecticut, which 
constitutes only one forty-third part of that of the United 
States, thus furnished one-eighth of the whole body of rep¬ 
resentatives. The state of Connecticut, however, only sends 
five delegates to congress; and the thirty-one others sit 
for the new western states. If these thirty-one individuals 
had remained in Connecticut, it is probable that instead 
of becoming rich landowners they would have remained 
humble laborers, that they would have lived in obscurity 
without being able to rise into public life, and that, far 
from becoming useful members of the legislature, they 
might have been unruly citizens. 

These reflections do not escape‘the observation of the Ame¬ 
ricans any more than of ourselves. “ It cannot be doubted,” 
says Chancellor Kent in his Treatise on American Law, 
“ that the division of landed estates must produce great evils 
when it is carried to such excess that each parcel of land is 
insufficient to support a family ; but these disadvantages 
have never been felt in the United States, and many genera¬ 
tions must elapse before they can be felt. The extent of our 
inhabited territory, the abundance of adjacent land, and the 
continual stream of emigration flowing from the shores of the 
Atlantic toward the interior of the country, suffice as yet, and 
will long suffice, to prevent the parcelling out of estates.” 

It is difficult to describe the rapacity with which the Ame¬ 
rican rushes forward to secure the immense booty which for¬ 
tune proffers to him. In the pursuit he fearlessly braves the 
arrow of the Indian and the distempers of the forest; he is 
unimpressed by the silence of the woods ; the approach of 
beasts of prey does not disturb him ; for he is goaded on- 
Avard by a passion more intense than the love of life. Be- 
ibre him lies a boundless continent, and he urges onward 
as if time pressed, and he was afraid of finding no room 
for his exertions. I have spoken of the emigration from 
the older states, but how shall I describe that which takes 
place from the more recent ones ? Fifty years have scarcely 
elapsed since that of Ohio was founded ; the greater part of 
its inhabitants were not born within its confines ; its capital 
has only been built thirty years, and its territory is still 
covered by an immense extent of uncultivated fields; never¬ 
theless, the population of Ohio is already proceeding west¬ 
ward, and most of the settlers who descend to the fertile sa¬ 
vannahs of Illinois are citizens of Ohio. These men left 
their first country to improve their condition ; they quit their 
resting-place to meliorate it still more ; fortune awaits them 


THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


299 


everywhere, but happiness they cannot attain. The desire 
ef prosperity has become an ardent and restless passion in 
their minds, which grows by what it gains. They early 
broke the ties which bound them to their natal earth, and 
they have contracted no fresh ones on their way. Emigra¬ 
tion was at first necessary to them as a means of subsistence ; 
and it soon becomes a sort of game of chance, which they 
pursue for the emotions it excites, as much as for the gain it ^ 
procures. 

Sometimes the progress of man is so rapid that the desert 
reappears behind him. The woods stoop to give him a pas¬ 
sage, and spring up again when he has passed. It is not 
uncommon in crossing the* new states of the west to meet 
with deserted dwellings in the midst of the wilds ; the travel¬ 
ler frequently discovers the vestiges of a log-house in the 
most solitary retreats, which bear witness to the power, and 
no less to the inconstancy of man. In these abandoned fields, 
and over those ruins of a day, the primeval forest soon scat¬ 
ters a fresh vegetation ; the beasts resume the haunts which 
were once their own ; and nature covers the traces of man’s 
path with branches and with flowers, which obliterate his 
evanescent track. 

I remember that in crossing one of the woodland districts 
which still cover the state of New York, I reached the shore 
of a lake, which was embosomed with forests coeval with the 
world. A small island, covered with woods, whose thick 
foliage concealed its banks, rose from the centre of the 
waters. Upon the shores of the lake no object attested the 
presence of man, except a column of smoke which might be 
seen on the horizon rising from the tops of the trees to the 
clouds, and seeming to hang from heaven rather than to be 
mounting to the sky. An Indian shallop was hauled up on 
the sand, which tempted me to visit the islet that had at 
first attracted my attention, and in a few minutes I set foot 
upon its banks. The whole island formed one of those deli¬ 
cious solitudes of the New World, which almost lead civilized 
man to regret the haunts of the savage. A luxuriant vege¬ 
tation bore witness to the incomparable fruitfulness of the 
soil. The deep silence, which is common to the wilds of 
North America, was only broken by the hoarse cooing of the 
wood-pigeon and the tapping of the woodpecker upon the 
bark of trees. I was far from supposing that this spot had 
ever been inhabited, so completely did nature seem to be left to 
her own caprices ; but when I reached the centre of the isle 
I thought that I discovered some traces of man, I then pro- 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


Sf>0 

ceeded to examine the surrounding objects with care, and .t 
soon perceived that an European had undoubtedly been led 
to seek a refuge in this retreat. Yet what changes had taken 
place in the scene of his labors! The logs which he had 
hastily hewn to build himself a shed had sprouted afresh ; the 
very props were intertwined with living verdure, and his cabin 
was transformed into a bower. In the midst of these shrubs 
j3l few stones were to be seen, blackened with fire and sprink¬ 
led with thin ashes; here the hearth had no doubt been, and 
the chimney in falling had covered it with rubbish. I stood 
for some time in silent admiration of the exuberance of nature 
and the littleness of man ; and when I wa« obliged to leave 
that enchanting solitude, I exclaimed with melancholy, “ Are 
ruins, then, already here V’ 

In Europe we are wont to look upon a restless dispositior>, 
an unbounded desire of riches, and an excessive love of inde¬ 
pendence, as propensities- very formidable to society. Yet 
these are the very elements which ensure a long and peace¬ 
ful duration to the republics of America. Without these un¬ 
quiet passions the population would collect in certain spots, 
and would soon be subject to wants like those of the Old 
World, which it is difficult to satisfy; for such is the present 
good fortune of the New World, that the vices of its inhabit¬ 
ants are scarcely less favorable to society than their virtues- 
These circumstances exercise a great influence on the esti¬ 
mation in which human actions are held in the two hemi¬ 
spheres. The Americans frequently term what we should call 
cupidity a laudable industry ; and they blame as faint-heart¬ 
edness what we consider to be the virtue of moderate de¬ 
sires. 

In France simple tastes, orderly manners, domestic affec¬ 
tions, and the attachment which men feel to the place of their 
birth, are looked upon as great guarantees of the tranquillity 
and happiness of the state. But in America nothing seems 
to be more prejudicial to society than these virtues. The 
French Canadians, who have faithfully preserved the tradi¬ 
tions of their pristine manners, are already embarrassed for 
room upon their small territory ; and tliis little community, 
which has so recently begun to exist, will shortly be a prey to 
the calamities incident to old nations. In Canada the most 
enlightened, patriotic, and humane inhabitants, make extraor¬ 
dinary efforts to render the people dissatisfied with those sim¬ 
ple enjoyments which still content it- There the seductions 
of wealth are vaunted with as much zeal, as the charms of 
ail lionest but limited income in the Old Worldand more? 


I'Mfi DfiMOCRAtlC REPtJBLld. 


sot 


exertions are made to eXcite the J^assions of the citizens there 
than to calm them elsewhere^ If tve listen to the eulogies^ 
V/e shall hear that nothing is more praiseworthy than to ex¬ 
change the pure and hommy pleasures which even the poor 
man tastes in his o\Vn country, for the dull delights of pros¬ 
perity under a foreign sky ; to leave the patrimonial hearth, 
and the turf beneath 'tvhich his forefathers sleep ; in short, to 
abandon the living and the dead in quest of fortune^ 

At the present time America presents a field for human 
effort, far more extensive than any sUm of labor which cart 
be applied to work it. In America, too much knowledge can¬ 
not be diffused ; for all knotvledge, while it may serve him 
who possesses it, turns also to the advantage of those who are 
AVithout it. New wants are not to be feared, since they cart 
be satisfied without difficulty ; the growth of human passions 
need not be dreaded, since all passions may find an easy and 
a legitimate object: nor can men be put in possession of too 
much freedom, since they are scarcely ever tempted to mis-, 
use their liberties. 

The American republics of the present day are like com¬ 
panies of adventurers, formed to explore in common the waste 
lands of the New World, and busied in a flourishing trade* 
The passions which agitate the Americans most deeply, are 
not their political, but their commercial passions ; or, to speak 
more correctly, they introduce the habits they contract irt 
business into their political life. They love Order, without 
which affairs do not prosper; and they set an especial value 
Upon a regular conduct, which is the foundation of a solid 
business ; they prefer the good sense which amasses large 
fortunes, to that enterprising spirit which frequently dissipates 
them ; general ideas alarm their minds, which are accustom¬ 
ed to positive calculations; and they hold practice in more 
honor than theory. 

It is in America that one learns to understand the influ¬ 
ence which physical prosperity exercises over political actions, 
and even over opinions which ought to acknowledge no sWay 
but that of reason ; and it is more especially among strangers 
tliat this truth is perceptible. Most of the European emi¬ 
grants to the New World carry with them that wild love of 
Independence and of change, which our calamities are apt to 
engender. I sometimes met with Europeans, in the United 
States, who had been obliged to leave their own country on 
account of their political opinions. They all astonished me 
by the language they held; but one of them surprised me 
more than all the rest. As I was crossing one of the most 
27 


302 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


remote districts of Pennsylvania, I was benighted, and oblig¬ 
ed to beg for hospitality at the gate of a wealthy planter, who 
was a Frenchman by birth. He bade me sit down beside his 
fire, and we began to talk with that freedom which befits per¬ 
sons who meet in the backwoods, two thousand leagues from 
their native country. I was aware that my host had been a 
great leveller and an ardent demagogue, forty years ago, and 
that his name was not unknown to fame. I was therefore not 
a little surprised to hear him discuss the rights of property as 
an economist or a landowner might have done : he spoke of 
the necessary gradations which fortune established among 
men, of obedience to established laws, of the influence of 
good morals in commonwealths, and of the support which re¬ 
ligious opinions give to order and to freedom; he even went * 
so far as to quote an evangelical authority in corroboration of 
one of his political tenets. 

I listened, and marvelled at the feebleness of human rea- 
son. A proposition is true or false, but no art can prove it 
to be one or the other, in the midst of the uncertainties of 
science and the conflicting lessons of experience, until a new 
incident disperses the clouds of doubt ; I was poor, I become 
rich ; and I am not to expect that prosperity will act upon my 
conduct, and leave my judgment free: my opinions change 
with my fortune, and the happy circumstances which I turn 
to my advantage, furnish me with that decisive argument 
which was before wanting. 

[The sentence beginning “ I was poor, I become rich,” &c., struck 
the editor, on perusal, as obscure, if not contradictory. The original 
seems more explicit, and justice to the author seems to require that it 
should be presented to the reader. “ J’4tais pauvre, me voici riche ; 
du raoins, si le bien-etre,. en agissant sur ma conduite, laissait mon 
jugement en liberte ! Mais non, mes opinions sont en efiet chang4es 
avec ma fortune, et, dans l’4venement heureux dont je profite, j’ai re- 
ellement decouvert la raison determinante qui jusque-la m’avait man- 
qu6 .”—American Editor.'] 

The influence of prosperity acts still more freely upon the 
American than upon strangers. The American has always 
seen the connexion of public order and public prosperity, in¬ 
timately united as they are, go on before his eyes; he does 
not conceive that one can subsist without the other ; he has 
therefore nothing to forget: nor has he, like so many Europ¬ 
eans, to unlearn the lessons of his early education. 


THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


303 


INFLUENCE OF THE LAWS UPON THE MAINTENANCE OF THE 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC IN THE UNITED STATES* 

Three principal Causes of the Maintenance of the democratic Repub¬ 
lic.— F ederal Constitutions.— Municipal Institutions.— Judicial 
Power. 

The principal aim of this book has been to make known the 
laws of the United States; if this purpose has been accom¬ 
plished, the reader is already enabled to judge for himself 
which are the laws that really tend to maintain the democratic 
republic, and which endanger its existence. If I have not 
succeeded in explaining this in the whole course of my work, 
I cannot hope to do so within the limits of a single chapter. 
It is not my intention to retrace the path I have already pur¬ 
sued ; and a very few lines will suffice to recapitulate what I 
have previously explained. 

Three circumstances seem to me to contribute most pow¬ 
erfully to the maintenance of the democratic republic in the 
United States. 

The first is that federal form of government which the 
Americans have adopted, and which enables the Union to 
combine the power of a great empire with the security of a 
small state;— 

The second consists in those municipal institutions which 
limit the^despotism of the majority, and at the same time im¬ 
part a taste for freedom, and a knowledge of the art of being 
free, to the people ;—" 

The third is to be met with in the constitution of the ju¬ 
dicial power. I have shown in what manner the courts of 
justice serve to repress the excesses of democracy ; and how 
they check and direct the impulses of the majority, without 
stopping its activity. 


influence of manners upon the MAINTENANCE OF THE 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC IN THE UNITED STATES. 

I HAVE previously remarked that the manners of the people 
may be considered as one of the general causes to which the 
maintenance of a democratic republic in the United States 
is attributable. I here use the word manners, with the mean¬ 
ing which the ancients attached to the word mores ; for I ap¬ 
ply it not only to manners, in their proper sense of what con- 



304 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


Btitutes the character of social intercourse, but I extend it to 
the various notions and opinions current among men, and to 
the mass of those ideas which constitute their character of 
mind. 1 comprise, therefore, under this term the whole moral 
and intellectual condition of a people. My intention is not 
to draw a picture of American manners, but simply to point 
out such features of them as are favorable to the maintenance 
of political institutions. 


Religion considered as a political institution, which 

POWERFULLY CONTRIBUTES TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC AMONG THE AMERICANS. 

North America peopled by Men who professed a democratic and re¬ 
publican Christianity.'—Arrival of the Catholics.-—For What Reason 
the Catholics form the most democratic and the most republican 
Class at the present Time. 

Every religion is to be found in juxtaposition to a political 
opinion, which is connected with it by affinity. If the hu¬ 
man mind be left to follpw its own bent, it will regulate the 
temporal and spiritual institutions of society upon one uni¬ 
form principle; and man will endeavor, if I may use the 
expression, to harmonize the state in which he lives upon 
earth, with the state he believes to await him in heaven. 

The greatest part of British America was peopled by men 
who, after having shaken oft* the authority of the pope, ac¬ 
knowledged no other religious supremacy ; they brought with 
them into the New World a form of Christianity, which I 
cannot better describe, than by styling it a democratic and 
republican religion. This sect contributed powerfully to the 
establishment of a democracy and a republic; and from the 
earliest settlement of the emigrants, politics and religion con¬ 
tracted an alliance which has never been dissolved. 

About fifty years ago Ireland began to pour a catholic 
population into the United States; on the other hand, the 
catholics of America made proselytes, and at the present 
moment more than a million of Christians, professing the 
truths of the church of Rome, are to be met with in the 
Union. These catholics are faithful to the observances of 
their religion ; they are fervent and zealous in the support 
and belief of their doctrines. Nevertheless they constitute 
the most republican and the most democratic class of citizens 
which exists in the United States; and although this fact 



THE DEMOCKATIC REPUBLIC. 


305 


may surprise the observer at first, the cause by which it is 
occasioned may easily be discovered upon reflection. 

I think that the catholic religion has erroneously been 
looked upon as the natural enemy of democracy. Among 
the various sects of Christians, Catholicism seems to me, on 
the contrary, to be one of those which are most favorable to 
the equality of conditions. In the catholic church, the re¬ 
ligious community is composed of only two elements; the 
priest and the people. The priest alone rises above the rank 
.• of his flock, and all below him are equal. 

On doctrinal points the catholic faith places all human 
capacities upon the same level ; it subjects the wise and the 
ignorant, the man of genius and the vulgar crowd, to the 
details of the same creed ; it imposes the same observances 
upon the rich and needy, it inflicts the same austerities upon 
the s>'ong and the weak, it listens to no compromises with 
mortal man, but reducing all the human race to the same 
standard, it confounds all the distinctions of society at the foot 
of the same altar, even as they are confounded in the sight 
of God. If Catholicism predisposes the faithful to obedience, 
it certainly does not prepare them for inequality ; but the 
contrary may be said of protestantism, which generally 
tends to make men independent, more than to render them 
equal. 

Catholicism is like an absolute monarchy ; if the sovereign 
be removed, all the other classes of society are more equal 
than they are in republics. It has not unfrequently occurred 
that the catholic priest has left the service of the altar to 
mix with the governing powers of society, and to make his 
place among the civil gradations of men. This religious in¬ 
fluence has sometimes been used to secure the interests of 
that political state of things to which he belonged. At other 
times catholics have taken the side of aristocracy from a 
spirit of religion. 

But no sooner is the priesthood entirely separated from the 
government, as is the case in the United States, than it is 
found that no class of men are more naturally disposed than 
the catholics to transfuse the doctrine of the equality of con¬ 
ditions into the political world. If, then, the catholic citizens 
of the United States are not forcibly led by the nature of 
their tenets to adopt democratic and republican principles, at 
least they are not necessarily opposed to them; and their 
social position, as well as their limited number, obliges them 
to adopt these opinions. Most of the catholics are poor, and 
they have no chance of taking a part in the government un 


306 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


less it be open to all the citizens. They constitute a minori¬ 
ty, and all rights must be respected in order to ensure to them 
the free exercise of their own privileges. These two causes 
induce them, unconsciously, to adopt political doctrines which 
they would perhaps support with less zeal if they were rich 
and preponderant. 

The catholic clergy of the United States has never at¬ 
tempted to oppose this political tendency; but it seeks rather 
to justify its results. The priests in America have divided 
the intellectual world into two parts : in the one they place the 
doctrines of revealed religion, which command their assent; 
in the other they leave those truths, which they believe to 
have been freely left open to the researches of political in¬ 
quiry. Thus the catholics of the United States are at the 
same time the most fa’thful believers and the most zealous 
citizens. 

It may be asserted that in the United States no religious 
doctrine displays the slightest hostility to democratic and re¬ 
publican institutions. The clergy of all the different sects 
holds the same language ; their opinions are consonant to 
the laws, and the human intellect flows onward in one sole 
current. 

I happened to be staying in one of the largest towns in the 
Union, when I was invited to attend a public meeting which 
had been called for the purpose of assisting the Poles, and 
of sending them supplies of arms and money. I found two 
or three thousand persons collected in a vast hall which had 
been prepared to receive them. In a short time a priest in 
his ecclesiastical robes advanced to the front of the hustings: 
the spectators rose, and stood uncovered, while he spoke in 
the following terms :— ^ 

Almighty God ! the God of armies ! Thou who didst 
strengthen the hearts and guide the arms of our fathers when 
they were fighting for the sacred rights of national independ¬ 
ence ; thou who didst make them triumph over a hateful op¬ 
pression, and hast granted to our people the benefits of liberty 
and peace; turn, O Lord, a favorable eye upon the other 
hemisphere; pitifully look down upon that heroic nation 
which is even now struggling as we did in the former time, 
and for the same rights which we defended with our blood. 
Thou, who didst create man in the likeness of the same 
image, let no tyranny mar thy work, and establish inequality 
upon the earth. Almighty God! do thou watch over the 
destiny of the Poles, and render them worthy to be free. 
May thy wisdom direct their councils, and may thy strength 


THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


307 


sustain their arms ! Shed forth thy terror over their ene¬ 
mies ; scatter the powers which take counsel against them; 
and vouchsafe that the injustice which the world has beheld 
for fifty years, be not consummated in our time. O Lord, 
who boldest alike the hearts of nations and of men in thy 
powerful hand, raise up allies to the sacred cause of right; 
arouse the French nation from the apathy in which its rulers 
retain it, that it go forth again to fight for the liberties of the 
world. 

“ Lord, turn not thou thy face from us, and grant that we 
may always be the most religious as well as the freest people 
of the earth. Almighty God, hear our supplications this day. 
Save the Poles, we beseech thee, in the name of thy well- 
beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who died upon the cross 
for the salvation of men. Amen.” 

The whole meeting responded “ Amen !” with devotion. 


INDIRECT INFLUENCE OF RELIGIOUS OPINIONS UPON POLITICAL 
SOCIETY IN THE UNITED STATES. 

Christian Morality common to all Sects.—Influence of Religion upon 
the Manners of the Americans.—Respect for the marriage Tie.—In 
what manner Religion confines the Imagination of the Americans 
within certain Limits, and checks the Passion of Innovation.—Opinion 
of the Americans on the political Utility of Religion.—Their Exer¬ 
tions to extend and secure its Predominance. 

I HAVE just shown what the direct influence of religion upon 
politics is in the United States ; but its indirect influence 
appears to me to be still more considerable, and it never 
instructs the Americans more fully in the art of being free than 
when it says nothing of freedom. 

The sects which exist in the United States are innumerable. 
They all differ in respect to the worship which is due from 
man to his Creator ; but they all agree in respect to the 
duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores 
the Deity in its own peculiar manner ; but all the sects preach 
the same moral law in the name of God. If it be of the 
slightest importance to man, as an individual, that his religion 
should be true, the case of society is not the same. Society 
has no future life to hope for or to fear; and provided the 
citizens profess a religion, the peculiar tenets of that religion 
are of very little importance to its interests. Moreover, 
almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within 



308 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is every¬ 
where the same. 

It may be believed without unfairness, that a certain 
number of Americans pursue a peculiar form of worship, 
from habit more than from conviction. In the United States 
the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypo¬ 
crisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole 
world in which the Christian religion retains a greater 
influence over the souls of men than in America ; and there 
can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to 
human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt 
over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. 

I have remarked that the members of the American clergy 
in general, without even ^excepting those who do not admit 
religious liberty, are all in favor of civil freedom ; but they do 
not support any particular political system. They keep aloof 
from parties, and from public affairs. In the United States 
religion exercises but little inffuence upon the laws, and upon 
ths details of public opinion ; but it directs the manners of the 
community, and by regulating domestic life, it regulates the 
state."^ 

I do not question that the great austerity of manners which 
is observable in the United States, arises, in the first instance, 
from religious faith. Religion is often unable to restrain man 
from the numberless temptations of fortune ; nor can it check 
that passion for gain which every incident of his life contri¬ 
butes to arouse; but its inffuence over the mind of women is 
supreme, and women are the protectors of morals. There is 
certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage 
is so much respected as in America, or where conjugal 
happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated. In Europe 
almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregu¬ 
larities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and 
legitimate pleasures of home, is to contract a taste for excesses, 
a restlessness of heart, and the evil of ffuctuating desires. 
Agitated by the tumultuous passions which frequently disturb 
his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience 
which the legislative powers of the state exact. But when 
the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the 
bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of 
peace. There his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys 
are innocent and calm ; and as he finds that an orderly life 
is the surest path to happiness, he accustoms himself without 
difficulty to moderate his opinions as well as his tastes. 
While the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles 


THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


309 


by agitating society, the American derives from his own home 
that love of order, which he afterward carries with him into 
public affairs. 

In the United States the influence of religion is not confined 
to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people. 
Among the Anglo-Americans, there are some who profess the 
doctrines of Christianity from a sincere belief in them, and 
others who do the same because they are afraid to be suspected 
of unbelief. Christianity, therefore, reigns without any 
obstacle, by universal consent; the consequence is, as I 
have before observed, that every principle of the moral world 
is fixed and determinate, although the political world is 
abandoned to the debates and the experiments of men. Thus 
the human mind is never left to wander across a boundless 
field; and, whatever may be its pretensions, it is checked 
from time to time by barriers which it cannot surmount. 
Before it can perpetrate innovation, certain primal and immu¬ 
table principles are laid down, and the boldest conceptions of 
human device are subjected to certain forms which retard and 
stop their completion. 

The imagination of the Americans, even in its greatest 
flights, is circumspect and undecided; its impulses are 
checked, and its works unfinished. These habits of restraint 
recur in political society, and are singularly favorable both 
to the tranquillity of the people and the durability of the insti¬ 
tutions it has established. Nature and circumstances concur¬ 
red to make the inhabitants of the United States bold men, 
as is sufficiently attested by the enterprising spirit with which 
they seek for fortune. If the minds of the Americans were 
free from all trammels, they would very shortly become the 
most daring innovators and the most implacable disputants in 
the world. But the revolutionists of America are obliged to 
profess an ostensible respect for Christian morality and equity, 
which does not easily permit them to violate the laws that 
oppose their designs ; nor would they find it easy to surmount 
the scruples of their partisans, even if they were able to get 
over their own. Hitherto no one, in the United States, has 
dared to advance the maxim, that everything is permissible 
with a view to the interests of society ; an impious adage, 
which seems to have been invented in an age of freedom, to 
shelter all the tyrants of future ages. Thus while the law 
permits the Americans to do what they please, religion pre¬ 
vents them from conceiving, and forbids them to commit, what 
is rash and unjust. 

Religion in America takes no direct part in the govern- 


310 


CAUSES TENDING TO BIAINTAIN 


merit of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the 
foremost of the political institutions of that country ; for if it 
does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of 
free institutions. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that 
the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon reli¬ 
gious belief. I do not know whether all the Americans have 
a sincere faith in their religion; for who can search the 
human heart ? but I am certain that they hold it to be indis¬ 
pensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This 
opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but 
it belongs to the whole nation, and to every rank of society. 

In the United States, if a political character attacks a sect, 
this may not prevent even the partisans of that very sect, 
from supporting him ; but if he attacks all the sects together, 
every one abandons him, and he remains alone. 

While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be 
called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New 
York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of 
God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused 
to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had 
destroyed beforehand all the confidence of the court in what 
he was about to say.* The newspapers related the fact with¬ 
out any farther comment. 

* The New York Spectator of August 23d, 1831, relates the fact in 
the following terms : “ The court of common pleas of Chester county 
(New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his dis¬ 
belief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked, that he 
had not befoi-e been aware that there was a man living who did not 
believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction 
of all testimony in a court of justice; and that he knew of no cause 
in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify 
without such belief. 

[The instance given by the author, of a person offered as a witness 
having been rejected on the ground that he did not believe in the 
existence of a God, seems to be adduced to prove either his assertion 
that the Americans hold religion to be indispensable to the maintenance 
of republican institutions—or his assertion, that if a man attacks all the 
sects together, every one abandons him and he remains alone. But it 
is questionable how far the fact quoted proves either of these positions. 
The rule which prescribes as a qualification for a witness the belief in a 
Supreme Being who will punish falsehood, without which he is deemed 
wholly incompetent to testify, is established for the protection of per¬ 
sonal rights, and not to compel the adoption of any system of religious 
belief. It came with all our fundamental principles from England as a 
part of the common law which the colonists brought with them. It 
is supposed to prevail in every country in Christendom, w'hatever may 
be the form of its government; and the only doubt that arises respect¬ 
ing its existence in France, is created by our author’s apparent surprise 
at finding such a rule in Amer'icd..—American Editor.} 


THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


311 


The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of 
liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible 
to make them conceive the one without the other; and with 
them this conviction does not spring from that barren tradi¬ 
tionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than 
to live. 

I have known of societies formed by the Americans to send 
out ministers of the gospel into the new western states, to 
found schools and churches there, lest religion should be suf¬ 
fered to die away in those remote settlements, and the rising 
states be less fitted to enjoy free institutions than the people 
from which they emanated. I met with wealthy New Eng¬ 
landers who abandoned the country in which they were born, 
in order to lay the foundations of Christianity and of freedom 
on the banks of the Missouri or in the prairies of Illinois. 
Thus religious zeal is perpetually stimulated in the United 
States by the duties of patriotism. These men do not act 
from an exclusive consideration of the promises of a future 
life ; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the 
cause ; and if you converse with these missionaries of Chris¬ 
tian civilisation, you will be surprised to find how much value 
they set upon the goods of this world, and that you meet with 
a politician where you expected to find a priest. They will 
tell you that “ all the American republics are collectively 
involved with each other; if the republics of the west were 
to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the repub¬ 
lican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the 
Atlantic ocean would be in great peril. It is therefore our 
interest that the new states should be religious, in order to 
maintain our liberties.” 

.Such are the opinions of the Americans; and if any hold 
that the religious spirit which I admire is the very thing most 
amiss in America, and that the only element wanting to the 
freedom and happiness of the human race is to believe in 
some blind cosmogony, or to assert with Cabanis the secre¬ 
tion of thought by the brain, I can only reply, that those who 
hold this language have never been in America, and that they 
have never seen a religious or a free nation. When they 
return from their expedition, we shall hear what they have to 
say. 

There are persons in France who look upon republican 
institutions as a temporary means of power, of wealth and 
distinction ; men who are the condottieri of liberty, and who 
fight for their own advantage, whatever be the colors they 
wear : it is not to these that I address myself. But there are 


312 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


Others who look forward to the republican form of govern¬ 
ment as a tranquil and lasting state, toward which modern 
society is daily impelled by the ideas and manners of the 
time, and who sincerely desire to prepare men to be free. 
When these men attack religious opinions, they obey the dic¬ 
tates of their passions to the prejudice of their interests. 
Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Re¬ 
ligion is much more necessary in the republic which they set 
forth in glowing colors, than in the monarchy which they 
attack ; and it is more needed in democratic republics than 
in any others. How is it possible that society should escape 
destruction if the moral tie be not strengthened in proportion 
as the political tie is relaxed ? and w'hat can be done with a 
people which is its own master, if it be not submissive to the 
Divinity ? 


PRINCIPAL CAUSES WHICH RENDER RELIGION POWERFUL IN 

AMERICA. 

Care taken by the Americans to separate the Church from the State,— 
The Laws, public Opinion, and even the Exertions of the Clergy 
concur to promote this end.—Influence of Religion upon the Mind, 
in the United States, attributable to this Cause.—Reason of this,— 
What is the natural State of Men with regard to Religion at the 
present time.—What are the peculiar and incidental Causes which 
prevent Men, in certain Countries, from arriving at this State. 

The philosophers of the eighteenth century explained the 
gradual decay of religious faith in a very simple manner. 
Religious zeal, said they, must necessarily fail, the more gen¬ 
erally liberty is established and knowledge diffused. Unfor¬ 
tunately, facts are by no means in accordance with their the¬ 
ory. There are certain populations in Europe whose unbe¬ 
lief is only equalled by their ignorance and their debase¬ 
ment, while in America one of the freest and most enlightened 
nations in the world fulfils all the outward duties of religion 
with fervor. 

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect 
of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; 
and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the 
great political consequences resulting from this state of things, 
to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost al¬ 
ways seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pur¬ 
suing courses diametrically opposed to each other ; but in 



THE DEMOCRATIC REFUBLIC, 


313 


America I found that they were intimately united, and that 
they reigned in common over the same country. My desire 
to discover the causes of this phenomenon increased from 
day to day. In order to satisfy it, I questioned the members 
of all the different sects ; and I more especially sought the 
society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of the different 
persuasions, and who are more especially interested in their 
duration. As a member of the Roman catholic church I was 
more particularly brought into contact with several of its 
priests, with whom I became intimately acquainted. To each 
of these men I expressed my astonishment and I explained 
my doubts: I found that they differed upon matters of detail 
alone ; and that they mainly attributed the peaceable do¬ 
minion of religion in their country, to the separation of church 
and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in 
^ America, I did not meet with a single individual, of the clergy 
or of the laity, who was not of the same opinion upon this 
point. 

This led me to examine more attentively than I had hith¬ 
erto done, the station which the American clergy occupy in 
political society. I learned with surprise that they fill no 
public appointments ;* not one of them is to be met with in 
the administration, and they are not even represented in the 
legislative assemblies. In several statesf the law excludes 
them from political life ; public opinion in all. And when I 
came to inquire into the prevailing spirit of the clergy, I found 
that most of its members seemed to retire of their own ac¬ 
cord from the exercise of power, and that they made it the 
pride of their profession to abstain from politics. 

I heard them inveigh against ambition and deceit, under 
whatever political opinions these vices might chance to lurk ; 
but I learned from their discourses that men are not guilty in 
the eye of God for any opinions concerning political govern¬ 
ment, which they may profess with sincerity, any more than 

* Unless this term be applied to the functions which many of them 
fill in the schools. Almost all education is intrusted to the clergy. 

t See the constitution of New York, art. 7, § 4:— 

“ And whereas, the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, 
dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to 
be diverted from the great duties of their functions ; therefore no min¬ 
ister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at 
any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be 
eligible to, or capable of holding any civil or military office or place 
within this state.” 

See also the constitutions of North Carolina, art. 31. Virginia. 
South Carolina, art. 1, § 23. Kentucky, art. 2, § 26. Tennessee, art 
S, § 1. Louisiana, art. 2, § 22. 

2S 


314 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


they are for their mistakes in building a house or m driving 
a furrow. I perceived that these ministers of the gospel es¬ 
chewed all parties^ with the anxiety attendant upon personal 
interest. These facts convinced me that what I had been 
told was true; and it then became my object to investigate 
their causes, and to inquire how it happened that the real au¬ 
thority of religion was increased by a state of things which 
diminished its apparent force : these causes did not long es¬ 
cape my researches. 

The short space of threescore years can never content the 
imagination of man ; nor can the imperfect joys of this world 
satisfy his heart. Man alone, of all created beings, displays 
a natural contempt of existence, and yet a boundless desire 
to exist; he scorns life, but he dreads annihilation. These 
different feelings incessantly urge his soul to the contem¬ 
plation of a future state, and religion directs his musings 
thither. Religion, then, is simply another form of hope ; 
and it is no less natural to the human heart than hope itself. 
Men cannot abandon their religious faith without a kind of 
aberration of intellect, and a sort of violent distortion of their 
true natures; but they are invincibly brought back to more 
pious sentiments ; for unbelief is an accident, and faith is the 
only j>ermanent state of mankind. If we only consider reli¬ 
gious institutions in a purely human point of view, they may 
be said to derive an inexhaustible element of strength from 
man himself, since they belong to one of the constituent prin¬ 
ciples of human nature. 

I am aware that at certain times religion may strengthen 
this influence, which originates in itself, by the artificial power 
of the laws, and by the support of those temporal institutions 
which direct society. Religions, intimately united to the gov¬ 
ernments of the earth, have been known to exercise a sove¬ 
reign authority derived from the twofold source of terror and 
of faith ; but when a religion contracts an alliance of this 
nature, I do not hesitate to affirm that it commits the same 
error, as a man who should sacrifice his future to his present 
welfare ; and in obtaining a power to which it has no claim, 
it risks that authority which is rightfully its own. When a 
religion founds its empire upon the desire of immortality 
which lives in every human heart, it may aspire to universal 
dominion : but when it connects itself with a government, it 
must necessarily adopt maxims which are only applicable to 
certain nations. Thus, in forming an alliance with a politi¬ 
cal power, religion augments its authority over a few, and 
forfeits the hope of reigning over all. 


THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


315 


As long as a religion rests upon those sentiments which are 
the consolation of ail affliction, it may attract the affections 
of mankind. But if it be mixed up with the bitter passions 
of the world, it may be constrained to defend allies whom its 
interests, and not the principle of love, have given to it; 
or to repel as antagonists men who are still attached to its 
own spirit, however opposed they may be to the powers to 
which it is allied. The church cannot share the temporal 
power of tlie state, without being the object of a portion of 
that animosity which the latter excites. 

The political powers which seem to be most firmly estab¬ 
lished have frequently no better guarantee for their duration, 
than the opinions of a generation, the interests of the time, or 
the life of an individual. A law may modify the social con- 
dition which seems to be most fixed and determinate ; and 
with the social condition everything else must change. The 
powers of society are more or less fugitive, like the years 
which we spend upon the earth; they succeed each other 
with rapidity like the fleeting cares of life; and no govern- 
ment has ever yet been founded upon an invariable disposi¬ 
tion of the human heart, or upon an imperishable interest. 

As long as religion is sustained by those feelings, propen¬ 
sities, and passions, which are found to occur under the same 
forms at all the different periods of history, it may defy the 
efforts of time ; or at least it can only be destroyed by another 
religion. But when religion clings to the interests of the 
world, it becomes almost as fragile a thing as the powers of 
the earth. It is the only one of them all which can hope t( r 
immortality ; but if it be connected with their ephemeral au¬ 
thority, it shares their fortunes, and may fall with those tran¬ 
sient passions which supported them for a day. The alliance 
which religion contracts with political powers must needs be 
onerous to itself; since it does not require their assistance to 
live, and by giving them its assistance it may be exposed to 
decay. 

The danger which I have just pointed out always exists, 
but it is not always equally visible. In some ages govern¬ 
ments seem to be imperishable, in others the existence of 
society appears to be more precarious than the life of man. 
Some constitutions plunge the citizens into a lethargic som¬ 
nolence, and others rouse them to feverish excitement. When 
government appears to be so strong, and laws so stable, men 
do not perceive the dangers which may accrue from a union 
of church and state. When governments display so much 
inconstancy, the danger is self-evident, but it is no longer 


316 


CAUSES TENDING TC MAINTAIN 


possible to avoid it; to be effectual, measures must be taken 
to discover its approach. 

In proportion as a nation assumes a democratic condition 
of society, and as communities display democratic propensi¬ 
ties, it becomes more and more dangerous to connect religion 
with political institutions ; for the time is coming when au¬ 
thority will be bandied from hand to hand, when political 
theories will succeed each other, and when men, laws and 
constitutions, will disappear or be modified from day to day, 
and this not for a season only, but unceasingly. Agitation 
and mutability are inherent in the nature of democratic re¬ 
publics, just as stagnation and inertness are the law of abso¬ 
lute monarchies. ? 

If the Americans, who change the head of the government 
once in four years, who elect new legislators every two years, 
and renew the provincial officers every twelvemonth; if the 
Americans, who have abandoned the political world to the 
attempts of innovators, had not placed religion beyond their 
reach, where could it abide in the ebb and flow of human 
opinions ? where would that respect which belongs to it be 
paid, amid the struggles of faction ? and what would become 
of its immortality in the midst of perpetual decay ? The 
American clergy were the first to perceive this truth, and to 
act in conformity with it. They saw that they must renounce 
their religious influence, if they were to strive for political 
power; and they chose to give up the support of the state, 
rather than to share in its vicissitudes. 

In America, religion is perhaps less powerful than it has 
been at certain periods in the history of certain peoples ; but 
its influence is more lasting. It restricts itself to its own re¬ 
sources, but of those none can deprive it: its circle is limited 
to certain principles, but those principles are entirely its own, 
and under its undisputed control. 

On every side in Europe we hear voices complaining of 
the absence of religious faith, and inquiring the means of 
restoring to religion some remnant of its pristine authority. 
It seems to me that we must first attentively consider wliat 
ought to be the natural state of men with regard to religion, 
at the present time ; and when we know what we have to 
hope and to fear, we may discern the end to which our efforts 
ought to be directed. 

The two great dangers which threaten the existence of re¬ 
ligions are schism and indifference. In ages of fervent 
devotion, men sometimes abandon their religion, but they only 
shake it off in order to adopt another. Their faith changes 


THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


317 


the objects to which it is directed, but it suffers no decline. 
The old religion, then, excites enthusiastic attachment or bit¬ 
ter enmity in either party; some leave it with anger, others 
cling to it with increased devotedness, and although persua¬ 
sions differ, irreligion is unknown. Such, however, is not 
the case when a religious belief is secretly undermined by 
doctrines which may be termed negative, since they deny the 
truth of one religion without affirming that of any other. 
Prodigious revolutions then take place in the human mind, 
without the apparent co-operation of the passions of man, and 
almost without his knowledge. Men lose the object of their 
fondest hopes, as if through forgetfulness. They are carried 
away by an imperceptible current which they have not the 
courage to stem, but which they follow with regret, since it 
bears them from a faith they love, to a scepticism that plunges 
them into despair. 

In ages which answer to this description, men desert their 
religious opinions from lukewarmness rather than from dis¬ 
like ; they do not reject them, but the sentiments by which 
they were once fostered disappear. But if the unbeliever 
does not admit religion to be true, he still considers it useful. 
Regarding religious institutions in a human point of view, he 
acknowledges their inffuence upon manners and legislation. 
He admits that they may serve to make men live in peace 
with one another and to prepare them gently for the hour of 
death. He regrets the faith which he has lost; and as he is 
deprived of a treasure which he has learned to estimate at its 
full value, he scruples to take it from those who still pos¬ 
sess it. 

On the other hand, those who continue to believe, are not 
afraid openly to avow their faith. They look upon those who 
do not share their persuasion as more worthy of pity than of 
opposition ; and they are aware, that to acquire the esteem 
of the unbelieving, they are not obliged to follow their 
example. They are hostile to no one in the world; and as 
they do not consider the society in which they live as an 
arena in which religion is bound to face its thousand deadly 
foes, they love their contemporaries, while they condemn 
their weaknesses, and lament their errors. 

As those who do notbelieve, conceal their incredulity ; and 
as those who believe, display their faith, public opinion pro¬ 
nounces itself in favor of religion: love, support, and honor, 
are bestowed upon it, and it is only by searching the human 
soul, that we can detect the wounds which it has received. 
The mass of mankind, who are never without the feeling of 
28 * 


318 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


religion, do not perceive anything at variance with the esta¬ 
blished faith. The instinctive desire of a future life brings 
the crowd about the altar, and opens the hearts of men to the 
precepts and consolations of religion. 

But this picture is not applicable to us ; for there are men 
among us who have ceased to believe in Christianity, without 
adopting any other religion ; others who are in the perplexi¬ 
ties of doubt, and who already affect not to believe; and 
others, again, who are afraid lo avow that Christian faith 
which they still cherish in secret. 

Amid these lukewarm partisans and ardent antagonists, a 
small number of believers exist, who are ready to brave all 
obstacles, and to scorn all dangers in defence of their faith. 
They have done violence to human weakness, in order to 
rise superior to public opinion. Excited by the effort they 
have made, they scarcely know where to stop ; and as they 
know that the first use which the French made of independ¬ 
ence, was to attack religion, they look upon their contempo¬ 
raries with dread, and they recoil in alarm from the liberty 
which their fellow-citizens are seeking to obtain. As unbe¬ 
lief appears to them to be a novelty, they comprise all that is 
new in one indiscriminate animosity. They are at war with 
their age and country, and they look upon every opinion 
which is put forth there as the necessary enemy of the faith. 

Such is not the natural state of men with regard to religion 
at the present day; and some extraordinary or incidental 
cause must be at work in France, to prevent the human mind 
from following its original propensities, and to drive it beyond 
the limits at which it ought naturally to stop. 

I am intimately convinced that this extraordinary and inci¬ 
dental cause is the close connexion of politics and religion. 
The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their po¬ 
litical opponents, rather than as their religious adversaries; 
they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party, 
much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the 
clergy less because they are the representatives of the Divin¬ 
ity, than because they are the allies of authority. 

In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the 
powers of the earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it 
is, as it were, buried under their ruins. The living body of 
religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superan¬ 
nuated polity ; cut the bonds which restrain it, and that which 
is alive will rise once more. I know not what could restore 
the Christian church of Europe to the energy of its earlier 
days; that power belongs to God alone; but it may be the 


THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, 


319 


effect oF human policy to le«.ve the faith in all the full exer¬ 
cise of the strength which it still retains. 


HOW THE INSTRUCTION, THE HABITS, AND THE PRACTICAL EX¬ 
PERIENCE OF THE AMERICANS PROMOTE THE SUCCESS OF 
THEIR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, 

What is to be understood by the instruction of the American People.— 
The human Mind is more superficially instructed in the United States 
than in Europe.—No one completely uninstructed.—Reason of this. 
Rapidity with which Opinions are diffused even in the uncultivated 
States of the West.—Practical Experience more serviceable to the 
Americans than Book-learning. 

I HAVE but little to add to what 1 have already said, concern¬ 
ing the influence which the instruction and the habits of the 
Americans exercise upon the maintenance of their political 
institutions, 

America has hitherto produced very few writers of distinc¬ 
tion ; it possesses no great historians, and not a single eminent 
poet. The inhabitants of that country look upon what are 
properly styled literary pursuits with a kind of disapproba¬ 
tion ; and there are towns of very second rate importance in 
Europe, in which more literary works are annually publish¬ 
ed, than in the twenty-four states of the Union put together. 
The spirit of the Americans is averse to general ideas ; and 
it does not seek theoretical discoveries. Neither politics nor 
manufactures direct them to these occupations; and although 
new laws are perpetually enacted in the United States, no 
great writers have hitherto inquired into the principles of their 
legislation. The Americans have lawyers and commenta¬ 
tors, but no jurists ; and they furnish examples rather than 
lessons to the world. The same observation applies to the 
mechanical arts. In America, the inventions of Europe are 
adopted with sagacity; they are perfected, and adapted with 
admirable skill to the wants of the country. Manufactures 
exist, but the science of manufacture is not cultivated; and 
they have good workmen, but veiy few inventors. Fulton 
was obliged to proffer his services to foreign nations for a long 
time before he was able to devote them to his own country. 

[The remark that in America there are very good workmen but 
very few inventors,” will excite surprise in this country. The invent¬ 
ive character of Fulton he seems to admit, but would apparently de¬ 
prive us of the credit of his name, by the remark that he was obliged 
to proffer his services to foreign nations for a long time. He might 




320 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


have added, that those proffers were disregarded and neglect" 
ed, and that it was finally in his own country that he found the aid 
necessary to put in execution his great project. If there be 
patronage extended by the citizens of the United States to any one 
thing in preference to another, it is to the results of inventive genius. 
Surely Franklin, Rittenhouse, and Perkins, have been heard of by our 
author; and he must have heard something of that wonderful inven¬ 
tion, the cotton-gin of Whitney, and of the machines for making cards 
to comb wool. The original machines of Fulton for the ajiplication of 
steam have been constantly improving, so that there is scarcely a ves¬ 
tige of them remaining. But to sum up the whole in one word, can it 
be possible tliat our author did not visit the patent office at Washing¬ 
ton ? Whatever may be said of the utility of nine^tenths of the in¬ 
ventions of which the descriptions and models are there deposited, no 
one who has ever seen that depository, or who has read a description 
of its contents, can doubt that they furnish the most incontestible evi¬ 
dence of extraordinary inventive genius—a genius that has excited the 
astonishment of other European travellers.— Amei~ican EditorJ] 

The observer who is desirous of forming an opinion on the 
state of instruction among the Anglo-Americans, must con¬ 
sider the same object from two different points of view. If 
he only singles out the learned, he will be astonished to find 
how rare they are ; but if he counts the ignorant, the Ame¬ 
rican people will appear to be the most enlightened commu¬ 
nity in the world. The whole population, as I observed in 
another place, is situated between these two extremes. 

In New England, every citizen receives the elementary 
notions of human knowledge ; he is moreover taught the doc¬ 
trines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his 
country, and the leading features of its constitution. In the 
states of Connecticut and Massachusetts, it is extremely rare 
to find a man imperfectly acquainted with all tliese things, 
and a person wholly ignorant of them is a sort of pheno¬ 
menon. 

When I compare the Greek and Roman republics with 
these American states; the manuscript libraries of the for¬ 
mer, and their rude population, with the innumerable journals 
and the enlightened people of the latter ; when I remember 
all the attempts which are made to judge the modern repub¬ 
lics by the assistance of those of antiquity, and to infer what 
will happen in our time from what took place two thousand 
years ago, I am tempted to burn my books, in order to apply 
none but novel ideas to so novel a condition of society. 

What I have said of New England must not, however, be 
applied indiscriminately to the whole Union: as we advance 
towards the west or the south, the instruction of the people 
diminishes. In the states which are adjacent to the Gulf of 
Mexico, a certain number of individuals may be found, as in 


THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


321 


our own countries, who are devoid of the rudiments of in- 
struction. But there is not a single district in the United 
States sunk in complete ignorance; and for a very simple 
reason; the peoples of Europe started from the darkness of 
a barbarous condition to advance toward the light of civilisa¬ 
tion ; their progress has been unequal; some of them have 
improved apace, while others have loitered in their course, 
and some have stopped, and are still sleeping upon the way. 

Such has not been the case in the United States. The 
Anglo-Americans settled in a state of civilisation, upon that 
territory which their descendants occupy; they had not to 
begin to learn, and it was sufficient not to forget. Now the 
children of these same Americans are the persons who, year 
by year, transport their dw'ellings into the wilds: and with 
their dwellings their acquired information and their esteem 
for knowledge. Education has taught them the utility of in- 
struction, and has enabled them to transmit that instruction 
to their posterity. In the United States society has no infancy, 
but it is born in man’s estate. 

The Americans never use the word “ peasant,” because 
they have no idea of the peculiar class which that term de¬ 
notes ; the ignorance of more remote ages, the simplicity of 
rural life, and the rusticity of the villager, have not been 
preserved among them; and they are alike unacquainted 
with the virtues, the vices, the coarse habits, and the simple 
graces of an early stage of civilisation. At the extreme 
borders of the confederate states, upon the confines of society 
and of the wilderness, a population of bold adventurers have 
taken up their abode, who pierce the solitudes of the Ameri¬ 
can woods, and seek a country there, in order to escape that 
poverty which awaited them in their native provinces. As 
soon as the pioneer arrives upon the spot which is to serve 
him for a retreat, he fells a few trees and builds a log-house. 
Nothing can offer a more miserable aspect than these isolated 
dwellings. The traveller who approaches one of them to¬ 
ward night-fall, sees the flicker of the hearth-flame through 
the chinks in the walls; and at night, if the wind rises, he 
hears the roof of boughs shake to and fro in the midst of the 
great forest trees. Who w^ould not suppose that this poor 
hut is the asylum of rudeness and ignorance ? Yet no sort 
of comparison can be drawn between the pioneer and the 
dwelling which shelters him. Everything about him is prim¬ 
itive and unformed, but he is himself the result of the labor 
and the experience of eighteen centuries. He wears the 
dress, and he speaks the language of cities J he is acquainted 


322 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


with the past, curious of the future, and ready for argument 
upon the present; he is, in short, a highly civilized being, 
who consents, for a time, to inhabit the back-woods, and who 
penetrates into the wilds of a New World with the Bible, an 
axe, and a file of newspapers. 

It is difficult to imagine the incredible rapidity with which 
public opinion circulates in the midst of these deserts.* I do 
not think that so much intellectual intercourse takes place in 
the most enlightened and populous districts of France.f It 
cannot be doubted that in the United States, the instruction of 
the people powerfully contributes to the support of a demo¬ 
cratic republic ; and such must always be the case, I believe, 
where instruction, which awakens the understanding, is not 
separated from moral education which amends the heart. 
But I by no means exaggerate this benefit, and I am still 
farther from thinking, as so many people do think in Europe, 
that men can be instantaneously made citizens by teaching 
them to read and write. True information is mainly derived 
from experience, and if the Americans had not been gradually 
accustomed to govern themselves, their book-learning would 
not assist them much at the present day. 

I have lived a great deal with the people in the United 
States, and I cannot express how much I admire their expe¬ 
rience and their good sense. An American should never be 
allowed to speak of Europe ; for he will then probably display 
a vast deal of presumption and very foolish pride. He will 


* I travelled along a portion of the frontier of the United States in 
a sort of cart which was termed the mail. We passed, day and night, 
with great rapidity along roads which were scarcely marked out, 
through immense forests : when the gloom of the woods became im¬ 
penetrable, the coachman lighted branches of fir and we journied along 
by the light they cast From time to time we came to a hut in the 
midst of the forest, which was a postoffice. The mail dropped an 
enormous bundle of letters at the- door of this isolated dwelling, and 
we pursued our way at full galloj), leaving the inhabitants of the neigh¬ 
boring log-houses to send for their share of the treasure. 

t In 1832, each inhabitant of Michigan paid a sum equivalent to 1 
franc, 22 centimes (French money) to the postoffice revenue; and each 
inhabitant of the Floridas paid 1 fr. 5 cent (See National Calendar, 
1833, p. 244.) In the same year each inhabitant of the department du 
Nord, paid 1 fr. 4 cent, to the revenue of the French postoffice. (See 
the Compte retidu de I’Administration des Finances, 1833, p. 623.) 
Now the state of Michigan only contained at that time 7 inhabitants 
per square league; and Florida only 5 ; the instruction and the com¬ 
mercial activity of these districts are inferior to those of most of the 
states in the Union; while the department du Nord, which contains 
3,400 inhabitants per square league, is one of the most enlightened 
and manufacturing parts of France. 


THE DEMOCRATCC REPUBLIC. 




lake up with those crude and vague notions which are so 
Useful to the ignorant all over the world. But if you question 
him respecting his own country, the cloud which dimmed his 
intelligence will immediately disperse ; his language will be- 
come as clear and as precise as his thoughts. He will inform 
you what his rights are, and by what means he exercises 
them ; he will be able to point out the customs which obtain 
in the political world. You will find that he is well acquainted 
with the rules of the administration, and' that he is familiar 
with the mechanism of the laws. The citizen of the United 
States does not acquire his practical science and his positive 
notions from books ; the instruction he has acquired may ha ye 
prepared him for receiving those ideas, but it did not furnish 
them. The American learns to know the laws by participat¬ 
ing in the act of legislation; and he takes a lesson in the 
forms of government, from governing. The great work of 
society is ever going on beneath his eyes, and, as it were, 
under his hands. 

In the United States politics are the end and aim of educa¬ 
tion ; in Europe its principal object is to fit men for private 
life. The interference of the citizens in'public affairs is too 
rare an occurrence for it to be anticipated beforehand. Upon 
casting a glance over society in the two hemispheres, these 
differences are indicated even by its external aspect. 

In Eumpe, we frequently introduce the ideas and the 
habits of private life into public aflairs ; and as we pass at 
once from the domestic circle to the government of the state, 
we may frequently be heard to discuss the great interests of 
society in the same manner in which we converse with our 
friends. The Americans, on the other hand, transfuse the 
habits of public life into their manners in private ; and in 
their country the jury is introduced into the games of school¬ 
boys, and parliamentary forms are observed in the order of 
a feast. 




324 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAIN7AK*f 


THE LAWS CONTEIBUTE MORE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC IN THE UNITED STATES THAN THE PHY¬ 
SICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COUNTRY, AND THE MANNERS 
MORE THAN THE LAWS. 

All the Nations of America have a democratic State' of Socrety.-^Yet 
democratic Institutions subsist only among the Anglo-Americans.—' 
The Spaniards of South America, equally favored by physical 
Causes as the Anglo-Americans, unable to maintain a democratic 
Republic.—-Mexico, which has adopted the Constitution of the United- 
States, in the same Predicament.—The Anglo-Americans of the' 
West less able to maintain it than those of the East—Reason of 
these different Results. 

1 HAVE remarked that the maintenance of democratic institu¬ 
tions in the United States is attributable to the circumstances,- 
the laws-, and the manners of that country.* Most Europe¬ 
ans are only acquainted with the first of these three causes,, 
and they are apt to give it a preponderating importance which 
it doe& not really possess. 

It i& true that the Anglo-Americans settled in the New 
World in a state of social equalitythe low-born and the' 
noble were not to be found among them; and professional' 
prejudices were always as entirety unknown as the prejudices- 
of birth- Thus, as the condition of society was democratic, 
the empire of democracy was established without difficulty- 
But this circumstance is by no means peculiar to the United 
States ; almost all the transatlantic colonies were founded by 
men equal among themselves, or who became so by inhabit¬ 
ing them. In no one part of the New World have Europe¬ 
ans been able to create an aristocracy. Nevertheless demo¬ 
cratic institutions prosper nowhere but in tlie United States. 

The American Union has no enemies to contend with ; it 
stands in the wilds like an island in the oCean^ But the" 
Spaniards of South America were no less isolated by nature 
yet their position has not relieved, them from ffie charge of 
standing armses. They make war upon easeh other wherr 
tliey have no foreign enemies to oppose; and She Angloi-- 
American democracy is the only oiie which has- hitherto beeir 
able to maintain itself in peacer 

The territory of the Union pTe^nts a boundless fieM to 
human activity, and inexhaustible materials for industry and 

* I remind the reader of the general signification which I give to th® 
word mannersf namely, the moral and intellectual charaGteristics of 
social man taken coHectively, 


mu mmctLAfic uurvutm 329 

labor'. The passion of wealth takes the place of amhitiody 
and the warmth of faction is mitigated by a sense of prosper¬ 
ity. But in what portion of the globe shall we meet with 
more fertile plains, with mightier rivers, or with more unex¬ 
plored and inexhaustible riches, than in South America ? 

Nevertheless South America has been unable to maintain 
democratic institutions. If the Welfare of nations depended 
on their being placed in a remote position^ with an unbounded 
space of habitable territory before them, the Spaniards of 
South America would have no reason to complain of their 
fate. And although they might enjoy less prosperity than the 
inhabitants of the United States, their lot might still be such 
as to excite the envy of some nations in Europe. There are, 
however, no nations upon the face of the earth more misera¬ 
ble than those of South America. 

Thus, not only are physical causes inadequate to produce 
results analogous to those which occur in North America, 
but they are Unable to raise the population of South America- 
above the level of European states, where they act in a con¬ 
trary direction. Physical causes do not therefore affect the 
destiny of nations so much as has been supposed. 

I have met with men in NeW England who were on the 
point of leaving a country, where they might have remained 
in easy circumstances, to go to seek their fortunes in the 
wilds. Not far from that district I found a French popula¬ 
tion in Canada, which Was closely crow'ded on a narrow ter¬ 
ritory, although the same wilds w'ere at hand; and while the 
emigrant from the United 'States purchased an extensive 
estate with the earnings of a short term of labor, the Cana¬ 
dian paid as much for land as he would have done in France. 
Nature offers the solitudes of the New World to Europeans; 
but they are not always acquainted with the means of turning 
her gifts to account. Other peoples of America have the 
same physical conditions of prosperity as the Anglo-Ameri¬ 
cans, but without their laws ancf their manners; and these 
peoples are Wretched. The laws and manners of the Anglo- 
Americans are therefore that cause of their greatness which 
is the object of my inquiry. 

I am far from supposing that the American laws are pre¬ 
eminently good in themselves ; I do not hold them to be ap¬ 
plicable to ail democratic peoples ; and several of them seem 
to me to be dangerous, even in the United States. Neverthe-* 
less, it cannot be denied that the American legislation, taken 
collectively, is extremely well adapted to the genius of the 
people and the nature of the country which it is intended to 



326 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


govern. The American laws are therefore good, and to them 
must be attributed a large portion of the success which 
attends the government of democracy in America: but I do 
not believe them to be the principal cause of that success; 
and if they seem to me to have more influence upon the social 
happiness of the Americans than the nature of the country, 
on the other hand there is reason to believe that their eflect is 
still inferior to that produced by the manners of the people. 

The federal laws undoubtedly constitute the most important 
part of the legislation of the United States. Mexico, which is 
not less fortunately situated than the Anglo-American Union, 
has adopted these same laws, but is unable to accustom itself 
to the government of democracy. Some other cause is there¬ 
fore at work independently of those physical circumstances 
and peculiar laws which enable the democracy to rule in the 
United States. 

Another still more striking proof may be adduced. Al¬ 
most all the inhabitants of the territory of the Union are the 
descendants of a common stock ; they speak the same lan¬ 
guage, they worship God in the same manner, they are af¬ 
fected by the same physical causes, and they obey the same 
laws. Whence, then, do their characteristic differences 
arise ? Why, in the eastern states of the Union, does the 
republican government display vigor and regularity, and 
proceed with mature deliberation ? Whence does it derive 
the wisdom and durability which mark its acts, while in the 
western states, on the contrary, society seems to be ruled by 
the powers of chance ? There, public business is conducted 
with an irregularity, and a passionate and feverish excite¬ 
ment, which does not announce a long or sure duration. 

1 am no longer comparing the Anglo-American states to 
foreign nations ; but I am contrasting them with each other, 
and endeavoring to discover why they are so unlike. The 
arguments which are derived from the nature of the country 
and the difference of legislation, are here all set aside. Re¬ 
course must be had to some other cause ; and what other 
cause can there be except the manners of the people ? 

It is in the eastern states that the Anglo-Americans have 
been longest accustomed to the government of democracy, and 
that they have adopted the habits and conceived the notions 
most favorable to its maintenance. Democracy has gradually 
penetrated into their customs, their opinions, and the forms of 
social intercourse ; it is to be found in all the details of daily 
life equally as in the laws. In the eastern states the instruc¬ 
tion and practical education of the people have been most 




THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


327 


perfected, and religion has been most thoroughly amalga¬ 
mated with liberty. Now these habits, opinions, customs, 
and convictions, are precisely the constituent elements of that 
which I have denominated manners. 

In the western states, on the contrary, a portion of the 
same advantages is still wanting. Many of the Americans 
of the west were born in the woods, and they mix the ideas 
and the customs of savage life with the civilisation of their 
parents. Their passions are more intense; their religious 
morality less authoritative ; and their convictions are less 
secure. The inhabitants exercise no sort of control over 
their fellow-citizens, for they are scarcely acquainted with 
each other. The nations of the west display, to a certain ex¬ 
tent, the inexperience and the rude habits of a people in its 
infancy; for although they are composed of old elements, 
their assemblage is of recent date. 

The manners of the Americans of the United States are, 
then, the real cause which renders that people the only one 
of the American nations that is able to support a democratic 
governmentand it is the influence of manners which pro¬ 
duces the different degrees of order and of prosperity, that 
may be distinguished in the several Anglo-American de¬ 
mocracies. Thus the effect which the geographical position 
of a country may have upon the duration of democratic in¬ 
stitutions is exaggerated in Europe. Too much importance 
is attributed to legislation, too little to manners. These three 
great causes serve, no doubt, to regulate and direct the 
American democracy; but if they were to be classed in 
their proper order, I should say that the physical circum¬ 
stances are less efficient than the laws, and the laws very 
subordinate to the manners of the people. I am convinced 
that the most advantageous situation and the best possible 
laws cannot maintain a constitution in spite of the manners 
of a country: while the latter may turn the most unfavor¬ 
able positions and the worst laws to some advantage. The 
importance of manners is a common truth to which study 
and experience incessantly direct our attention. It may be 
regarded as a central point in the range of human observa¬ 
tion, and the common termination of all inquiry. So se¬ 
riously do I insist upon this head, that if I have hitherto 
failed in making the reader feel the important influence which 
I attribute to the practical experience, the habits, the opinions, 
in short, to the manners of the Americans, upon the main- 
tenance of their institutions, I have failed in the principal ob- 
ject of my work. 


828 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


Whether laws aNd manners are sufficient to Main¬ 
tain DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES BESIDE 
AMERICA. 

The Anglo-AmeHcanSj if transported into Eui'ope, Would be obliged 
to modify their Laws.—^Distinction to be made between democratic 
Institutions and American Institutions.—‘Democratic Laws may be 
conceived better thanj or at least different from, those which the 
American Democracy has adopted.—The Example of America only 
proves that it is possible to regulate Detnodi'aCy by the assistance of 
Manners and Legislation. 

✓ 

I HAVE asserted that the success of democratic institutions in 
the United States is more intimately connected with the laws 
themselves, and the manners of the people, than with the 
nature of the country.* But does it follow that the same 
causes would of themselves produce the same results, if they 
were put into operation elsewhere ; and if the country is no 
adequate substitute for laws and manners, can laws and man¬ 
ners in their turn prove a substitute for a country ? It will 
readily be understood that the necessary elements of a reply 
to this question are wanting: other peoples are to be found 
in the New World beside the Anglo-Americans, and as these 
peoples are affected by the same physical circumstances as 
the latter, they may fairly be compared together. But there 
are no nations out of America ^vhich have adopted the same 
laws and manners, being destitute of the physical advantages 
peculiar to the Anglo-Americans. No standard of compari¬ 
son therefore exists, and we can only hazard an opinion upon 
this subjecti 

It appears to me in the first place, that a careful distinc¬ 
tion must be made between the institutions of the United 
States and democratic institutions in general. When I re- 
fiect upon the state of Europe, its mighty nations, its popu¬ 
lous cities, its formidable armies, and the complex nature of 
its politics, I cannot'suppose that even the Anglo-Americans, 
if they were transported to our hemisphere, with their ideas, 
their religion, and their manners, could exist without con¬ 
siderably altering their laws. But a democratic nation may 
be imagined, organized differently from the American people^ 
It is not impossible to conceive a government really esta¬ 
blished Upon the will of the majority ; but in which the ma¬ 
jority, repressing its natural propensity to equality, should 
consent, with a view to the order and the stability of the state, 
to invest a family or an individual with all the prerogatives 


THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


329 


of the executive. A democratic society might exist, in which 
the forces of the nation would be more centralized than they 
are in the United States; the people would exercise a less 
direct and less irresistible influence upon public aflairs, and 
yet every citizen, invested with certain rights^ would partici¬ 
pate, within his sphere, in the conduct of the government. 
The observations I made among the Anglo-Americans induce 
me to believe that democratic institutions of this kind, pru¬ 
dently introduced into society, so as gradually to mix with 
the habits and to be infused with the opinions of the people, 
might subsist in other countries beside America. If the 
laws of the United States were the only imaginable democra¬ 
tic laws, or the most perfect which it is possible to conceive, 
I should admit that the success of those institutions .affords 
no proof of the success of democratic institutions in general, 
in a country less favored by natural circumstances. But as 
the laws of America appear to me to be defective in several 
respects, and as I can readily imagine others of the same 
general nature, the peculiar advantages of that country do 
not prove that democratic institutions cannot succeed in a 
nation less favored by circumstances, if ruled by better laws. 

If human nature were different in America from what it 
is elsewhere ; or if the social condition of the Americans 
engendered habits and opinions among them different from 
those which originate in the same social condition in the Old 
World, the American democracies would afford no means of 
predicting what may occur in other democracies. If the 
Americans displayed the same propensities as all other de¬ 
mocratic nations, and if their legislators had relied upon the 
nature of the country and the favor of circumstances to re¬ 
strain those propensities within due limits, the prosperity of 
the United States would be exclusively attributable to physi¬ 
cal causes, and it would afford no encouragement to a people 
inclined to* imitate their example, without sharing their na¬ 
tural advantages. But neither of these suppositions is borne 
out by facts. ' 

In America the same passions are to be met with as in 
Europe ; some originating in human nature, others in the de¬ 
mocratic condition of society. Thus in the United States I 
found that restlessness of heart which is natural to men, 
when all ranks are nearly equal and the chances of eleva¬ 
tion are the same to all. I found the democratic feeling of 
envy expressed under a thousand different forms. I re¬ 
marked that the people frequently displayed, in the conduct 
of affairs, a consummate mixture of ignorance and presump- 
29 * 


330 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


tion ; and I inferred that, in America, men are liable to the 
same failings and the same absurdities as among ourselves. 
But upon examining the state of society more attentively, I 
speedily discovered that the Americans had made great and 
successful efforts to counteract these imperfections of human 
nature, and to correct the natural defects of democracy. 
Their divers municipal laws appeared to me^ to be a means 
of restraining the ambition of the citizens within a narrow 
sphere, and of turning those same passions, which might 
have worked havoc in the state, to the good of the township 
or the parish. The American legislators have succeeded to 
a certain extent in opposing the notion of rights, to the feel¬ 
ings of envy; the permanence of the religious world, to the 
continual shifting of politics ; the experience of the people, 
to its theoretical ignorance; and its practical knowledge of 
business, to the impatience of its desires. 

The Americans, then, have not relied upon the nature of 
their country, to counterpoise those dangers which originate 
in their constitution and in their political laws. To evils 
which are common to all democratic peoples, they have ap¬ 
plied remedies which none but themselves had ever thought 
of before ; and although they were the first to make the ex¬ 
periment, they have succeeded in it. 

The manners and laws of the Americans are not the only 
ones which may suit a democratic people ; but the Ameri¬ 
cans have shown that it would be wrong to despair of regu¬ 
lating democracy by the aid of manners and of laws. If 
other nations should borrow this general and pregnant idea 
from the Americans, without however intending to imitate 
them in the peculiar application which they have made of it; 
if they should attempt to fit themselves for that social condi¬ 
tion, which it seems to be the will of Providence to impose 
upon the generations of this age, and so to escape from the 
despotism of the anarchy which threatens them j what rea¬ 
son is there to suppose that their efforts would not be crowned 
with success ? The organization and the establishment of 
democracy in Christendom, is the great political problem of 
the time. The Americans, unquestionably, have not resolved 
this problem, but they furnish useful data to those who un¬ 
dertake the task. 


THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


331 


IMPORTANCE OF WHAT PRECEDES WITH RESPECT TO THE 
STATE OF EUROPE. 

It may readily be discovered with what intention I undertook: 
the foregoing inquiries. The question here discussed is inte¬ 
resting not only to the United States, but to the whole world; 
it concerns, not a nation, but all mankind. If those nations 
whose social condition is democratic could only remain free 
as long as they are inhabitants of the wilds, we could not but 
despair of the future destiny of the human race; for demo¬ 
cracy is rapidly acquiring a more extended sway, and the 
wilds are gradually peopled with men. If it were true that 
laws and manners are insufficient to maintain democratic in¬ 
stitutions, what refuge would remain open to the nations 
except the despotism of a single individual ? I am aware 
that there are many worthy persons at the present time who 
are not alarmed at this latter alternative, and who are so 
tired of liberty as to be glad of repose, far from those storms 
by which it is attended. But these individuals are ill ac¬ 
quainted with the haven to which they are bound. They 
are so deluded by their recollections, as to judge the tendency 
of absolute power by what it was formerly, and not what it 
might beconrie at the present time. 

If absolute power were re-established among the demo¬ 
cratic nations of Europe, I am persuaded that it would assume 
a new form, and appear under features unknown to our fore¬ 
fathers. There was a time in Europe, when the laws and 
the consent of the people had invested princes with almost 
unlimited authority ; but they scarcely ever availed them¬ 
selves of it. I do not speak of the prerogatives of the nobility, 
of the authority of supreme courts of justice, of corporations 
and their chartered rights, or of provincial privileges, which 
served to break the blows of the sovereign authority, and to 
maintain a spirit of resistance in the nation. Independently 
of these political institutions—which, however opposed they 
might be to personal liberty, served to keep alive the love of 
freedom in the mind of the public, and which may be esteemed 
to have been useful in this respect—the manners and opi¬ 
nions of the nation confined the royal authority within barriers 
which were not less powerful, although they were less con¬ 
spicuous. Religion, the affections of the people, the benevo¬ 
lence of the prince, the sense of honor, family pride, provin¬ 
cial prejudices, custom, and public opinion, limited the power 
of kings, and restrained their authority within an invisible 


332 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


circle. The constitution of nations was despotic at that time, 
but their manners were free. Princes had tlie right, but 
they had neither the means nor the desire, of doing whatever 
they pleased. 

But what now remains of those barriers which formerly 
arrested the aggressions of tyranny ? Since religion has lost 
its empire over the souls of men, the most prominent boun¬ 
dary which divided good from evil is overthrown : the very 
elements of the moral world are indeterminate ; the princes 
and the peoples of the earth are guided by chance, and none 
can define the natural limits of despotism and the bounds of 
license. Long revolutions have for ever destroyed the re¬ 
spect which surrounded the rulers of the state ; and since 
they have been relieved from the burden of public esteem, 
princes may henceforward surrender themselves without fear 
to the seductions of arbitrary power. 

When kings find that the hearts of their subjects are turned 
toward them, they are clement, because they are conscious 
of their strength ; and they are chary of the affection of their 
people, because the affection of their people is the bulwark of 
the throne. A mutual interchange of good will then takes 
place between the prince and the people, which resembles 
the gracious intercourse of domestic society. The subjects 
may murmur at the sovereign’s decree, but they are grieved 
to displease him ; and the sovereign chastises his subjects 
with the light hand of parental affection. 

But when once the spell of royalty is broken in the tumult 
of revolution; when successive monarchs have occupied the 
throne, and alternately displayed to the people the weakness 
of right, and the harshness of power, the sovereign is no lon¬ 
ger regarded by any as the father of the state, and he is 
feared by all as its master. If he be weak, he is despised ; 
if he be strong, he is detested. He is himself full of ani¬ 
mosity and alarm ; he finds that he is a stranger in his own 
country, and he treats his subjects like conquered enemies. 

When the provinces and the towns formed so many dif¬ 
ferent nations in the midst of their common country, each of 
them had a will of its own, which was opposed to the general 
spirit of subjection; but now that all the parts of the same 
empire, after having lost their immunities, their customs, 
their prejudices, their traditions, and their names, are sub¬ 
jected and accustomed to the same laws, it is not more diffi¬ 
cult to oppress them collectively, than it was formerly to op¬ 
press them singly. ^ 

While the nobles enjoyed their power, and indeed long 




THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


333 


after that power was lost, the honor of aristocracy conferred 
an extraordinary degree of force upon their personal opposi¬ 
tion. They afforded instances of men who, notwithstanding 
their weakness, still entertained a high opinion of their per¬ 
sonal value, and dared to cope single-handed with the efforts 
of the public authority. But at the present day, when all 
ranks are more and more confounded, when the individual 
disappears in the throng, and is easily lost in the midst of a 
common obscurity, when the honor of monarchy has almost 
lost its empire without being succeeded by public virtue, and 
when nothing can enable man to rise above himself, who 
shall say at what point the exigencies of power and servility 
of weakness will stop ? 

As long as family feeling was kept alive, the antagonist of 
oppression was never alone; he looked about him, and found 
his clients, his hereditary friends, and his kinsfolk. If this 
support was wanting, he was sustained by his ancestors and 
animated by his posterity. But when patrimonial estates are 
divided, and when a few years suffice to confound the dis¬ 
tinctions of a race, where can family feeling be found ? 
What force can there be in the customs of a country which 
has changed, and is still perpetually changing its aspect; in 
which every act of tyranny has a precedent, and every crime 
an example ; in which there is nothing so old that its anti¬ 
quity can save it from destruction, and nothing so unparal¬ 
leled that its novelty can prevent it from being done ? 
What resistance can be offered by manners of so pliant a 
make, that they have already often yielded ? What strength 
can even public opinion have retained, when no twenty per¬ 
sons are connected by a common tie ; when not a man, nor 
a family, nor chartered corporation, nor class, nor free insti¬ 
tution, has the power of representing that opinion ; and when 
every citizen—being equally weak, equally poor, and equally 
dependant—has only his personal impotence to oppose to the 
organized force of the government 1 

The annals of France furnish nothing analogous to the con¬ 
dition in which that country might then be thrown. 'But it 
may more aptly be assimilated to the times of old, and to 
those hideous eras of Roman oppression, when the manners 
of the people were corrupted, their traditions obliterated, their 
habits destroyed, their opinions shaken, and freedom, expelled 
from the laws, could find no refuge in the land ; when noth¬ 
ing protected the citizens, and the citizens no longer protected 
themselves ; when human nature was the sport of man, and 
princes wearied out the clemency of Heaven before they ex- 


334 


CAUSES TENDING TO MAINTAIN 


hausted the patience of their subjects. Those who hope to 
revive the monarchy of Henry IV. or of Louis XIV., appear 
to me to be afflicted with mental blindness; and when I con¬ 
sider the present condition of several European nations—a 
condition to which all the others tend—I am led to believe 
that they will soon be left with no other alternative than 
democratic liberty, or the tyranny of the Cesars. 

And, indeed, it is deserving of consideration, whether men 
are to be entirely emancipated, or entirely enslaved ; whether 
their rights are to be made equal, or wholly taken away from 
them. If the rulers of society were reduced either gradu¬ 
ally to raise the crowd to their own level, or to sink the citi¬ 
zens below that of humanity, would not the doubts of many 
be resolved, the consciences of many be healed, and the 
community be prepared to make great sacrifices with little 
difficulty ? In that case, the gradual growth of democratic 
manners and institutions should be regarded, not as the best, 
but as the only means of preserving freedom ; and without 
liking the government of democracy, it might be adopted as 
the most applicable and the fairest remedy for the present ills 
of society. 

It is difficult to associate a people in the work of govern¬ 
ment ; but it is still more difficult to supply it with experience, 
and to inspire it with the feelings which it requires in order 
to govern well. I grant that the caprices of democracy are 
perpetual; its instruments are rude, its laws imperfect. But 
if it were true that soon no just medium would exist between 
the empire of democracy and the dominion of a single arm, 
should we not rather incline toward the former, than submit 
voluntarily to the latter ? And if complete equality be our 
fate, is it not better to be levelled by free institutions than by 
despotic power ? 

Those who, after having read this book, should imagine that 
my intention in writing it has been to propose the laws and 
manners of the Anglo-Americans for the imitation of all de¬ 
mocratic peoples, would commit a very great mistake ; they 
must have paid more attention to the form than to the sub- 
stance'of my ideas. My aim has been to show, by the ex¬ 
ample of America, that laws, and especially manners, may 
exist, which will allow a democratic people to remain free. 
But I am very far from thinking that we ought to follow the 
example of the American democracy, and copy the means 
which it has employed to attain its ends ; for I am well aware 
of the influence which the nature of a country and its poli¬ 
tical precedents exercise upon a constitution ; and I should 


THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 


335 


regard it as a great misfortune for mankind, if liberty were to 
exist, all over the world, under the same forms. 

But I am of opinion that if we'do not succeed in gradu¬ 
ally introducing democratic institutions into France, and if 
we despair of imparting to the citizens those ideas and senti¬ 
ments which first prepare them for freedom, and afterward 
allow them to enjoy it, there will be no independence at all, 
either for the middling classes or the nobility, for the poor or 
for the rich, but an equal tyranny over all; and I foresee 
that if the peaceable empire of the majority be not founded 
among us in time, we shall sooner or later arrive at the un¬ 
limited authority of a single despot. 


CHAPTER.XVIII. 

THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CONDITION OF THE 

THREE RACES WHICH INHABIT THE TERRITORY OF THE 

UNITED STATES. 

The principal part of the task which I had imposed upon my¬ 
self is now performed: T have shown, as far as I was able, 
the laws and manners of the American democracy. Here 1 
might stop ; but the reader would perhaps feel that I had not 
satisfied his expectations. 

The absolute supremacy of democracy is not all that we 
meet with in America ; the inhabitants of the New World 
may be considered from more than one point of view. In 
the course of this work, my subject has often led me to speak 
of the Indians and the negroes ; but I have never been able 
to stop in order to show what places these two races occupy, 
in the midst of the democratic people whom I was engaged 
in describing. I have mentioned in what spirit, and accord¬ 
ing to what laws, the Anglo-American Union was formed ; 
but I could only glance at the dangers which menace that 
confederation, while it was equally impossible for me to give 
a detailed account of its chances of duration, independently 
of its laws and manners. When speaking of the United re¬ 
publican States, I hazarded no conjectures upon the perma¬ 
nence of republican forms in the New World ; and when 
making frequent allusion to the commercial activity which 




336 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


reigns in the Union, I was unable to inquire into the future 
condition of the Americans as a commercial people. 

These topics are collaterally connected with my subject, 
without forming a part of it; they are American, without be¬ 
ing democratic ; and to portray democracy has been my prin¬ 
cipal aim. It was therefore necessary to postpone these ques¬ 
tions, which I now take up as the proper termination of my 
work. 

The territory now occupied or claimed by the American 
Union, spreads from the shores of the Atlantic to those of the 
Pacific ocean. On the east and west its limits are those of the 
continent itself. On the south it advances nearly to the tropic, 
and it extends upward to the icy regions of the north.* 

The human beings who are scattered over this space do 
not form, as in Europe, so many branches of the same stock. 
Three races naturally distinct, and I might almost say hostile 
to each other, are discoverable among them at the first glance. 
Almost insurmountable barriers had been raised between 
them by education and by law, as well as by their origin and 
outward characteristics ; but fortune has brought them toge¬ 
ther on the same soil, where, although they are mixed, they 
do not amalgamate, and each race fulfils its destiny apart. 

Among these widely differing families of men, the first which 
attracts attention, the superior in intelligence, in power, and 
in enjoyment, is the white or European, the man pre-eminent; 
and in subordinate grades, the negro and the Indian. These 
two unhappy races have nothing in common ; neither birth, 
nor features, nor language, nor habits. Their only resem¬ 
blance lies in their misfortunes. Both of them occupy an 
inferior rank in the country they inhabit; both suffer from 
tyranny ; and if their wrongs are not the same, they originate 
at any rate with the same authors. 

If we reasoned from what passes in the world, we should 
almost say that the European is to the other races of man¬ 
kind, what man is to the lower animals;—he makes them 
subservient to his use ; and when he cannot subdue, he des¬ 
troys them. Oppression has at one stroke deprived the des¬ 
cendants of the Africans of almost all the privileges of hu¬ 
manity. The negro of the United States has lost all remem¬ 
brance of his country; the language which his forefathers 
spoke is never heard around him ; he abjured their religion 
and forgot their customs when he ceased to belong to Africa, 
without acquiring any claim to European privileges. But he 
remains half-way between the two communities; sold by the 


See the map. 


THE THREE RACKS INHABITING THE U, S. 


337 


one, repulsed by the other ; finding not a spot in the universe 
to call by the name of country, except the faint image of a 
home which the shelter of his master’s roof affords. 

The negro has no family ; woman is merely the temporary 
companion of his pleasures, and his children are upon an 
equality with himself from the moment of their birth. Am I 
to call it a proof of God’s mercy, or a visitation of his wrath, 
that man in certain states appears to be insensible to his 
extreme wretchedness, and almost affects with a depraved 
taste the cause of his misfortunes? The negro, who is 
plunged in this abyss of evils, scarcely feels his own calami¬ 
tous situation. Violence made him a slave, and the habit of 
servitude gives him the thoughts and desires of a slave; he 
admires his tyrants more than he hates them, and finds his 
joy and his pride in the servile imitation of those who oppress 
him: his understanding is degraded to the level of his soul. 

The negro enters upon slavery as soon as he is born ; nay, 
he may have been purchased in the womb, and have begun 
his slavery before he began his existence. Equally devoid 
of wants and of enjoyment, and useless to himself, he learns, 
with his first notions of existence, that he is the property of 
another who has an interest in preserving his life, and that 
the care of it does not devolve upon himself; even the power 
of thought appears to him a useless gift of Providence, and he 
quietly enjoys the privileges of his debasement. 

If he becomes free, independence is often felt by him to be 
a heavier burden than slavery; for having learned, in the 
course of his life, to submit to everything except reason, he 
is too much unacquainted with her dictates to obey them. A 
thousand new desires beset him, and he is destitute of the 
knowledge and energy necessary to resist them: these are 
masters which it is necessary to contend with, and he has 
learned only to submit and obey. In short, he sinks to such 
a depth of wretchedness, that while servitude brutalizes, 
liberty destroys him. 

Oppression has been no less fatal to the Indian than to the 
negro race, but its effects are different. Before the arrival 
of the white men in the New World, the inhabitants of North 
America lived quietly in their woods, enduring the vicissi¬ 
tudes, and practising the virtues and vices common to savage 
nations. The Europeans, having dispersed the Indian tribes 
and driven them into the deserts, condemned them to a wander¬ 
ing life full of inexpressible sufferings. 

Savage nations are only controlled by opinion and by 
custom. When the North American Indians had lost their 
30 



338 


PEESKNT ANj!) FUTURE caiVCrflON 0 ¥ 


sentiment of attachment to their country ; when their families 
were dispersed, their traditions obscured, and the chain of 
their recollections broken ; when all their habits were changed, 
and their wants increased beyond measure, European tyranny 
rendered them more disorderly and less civilized than they 
were before. The moral and physical condition of these 
tribes continually grew worse, and they became more barba¬ 
rous as they became more wretched. Nevertheless the 
Europeans have not been able to metamorphose the character 
of the Indians ; and though they have had power to destroy 
them, they have never been able to make them submit to the 
rules of civilized society. 

The lot of the negro is placed on the extreme limit of ser¬ 
vitude, while that of the Indian lies on the utmost verge of 
liberty ; and slavery does not produce more fatal effects upon 
the first, than independence upon the second. The negro has 
lost all property in his own person, and he cannot dispose of 
his existence without committing a sort of fraud : but the 
savage is his own master as soon as he is able to act; parental 
authority is scarcely known to him ; he has never bent his 
will to that of any of his kind, or learned the difference 
between voluntary obedience and a shameful subjection ; and 
the very name of law is unknown to him. To be free, with 
him, signifies to escape from all the shackles of society. As he 
delights in this barbarous independence, and would rather 
perish than sacrifice the least part of it, civilisation has little 
power over him. 

The negro makes a thousand fruitless efforts to insinuate 
himself among men who repulse him; he conforms to the 
taste of his oppressors, adopts their opinions, and hopes by 
imitating them to form a part of their community. Having 
been told from infancy that his race is naturally inferior to 
that of the whites, he assents to the proposition, and is ashamed 
of his own nature. In each of his features he discovers a 
trace of slavery, and, if it were in his power, he would will¬ 
ingly rid himself of everything that makes him what he is. 

The Indian, on the contrary, has his imagination inflated 
with the pretended nobility of his origin, and lives and dies in 
the midst of these dreams of pride. Far from desiring to 
conform his habits to ours, he loves his savage life as the dis¬ 
tinguishing mark of his race, and he repels every advance to 
civilisation, less perhaps from the hatred which he entertains 
for it, than from a dread of resembling the Europeans.* 

* The native of North America retains his opinions and the most 
insignificant of his habits with a degree of tenacity which has no parallel 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 


339 


While he has nothing to oppose to our perfection in the arts 
but the resources of the desert, to our tactics nothing but un¬ 
disciplined courage; while our well-digested plans are met 
by the spontaneous instincts of savage life, who can wonder 
if he fails in this unequal contest ? 

The negro who earnestly desires to mingle his race with 
that of the European, cannot effect it; while the Indian, who 
might succeed to a certain extent, disdains to make the 
attempt. The servility of the one dooms him to slavery, the 
- pride of the other to death. 

I remember that while I was travelling through the forests 
which still cover the state of Alabama, I arrived one day at 
the log house of a pioneer. I did not wish to penetrate into the 
dwelling of the American, but retired to rest myself for a 
while on the margin of a spring, which was not far off, in the 
woods. While I was in this place (which was in the neigh¬ 
borhood of the Creek territory), an Indian woman appeared, 
followed by a negress, and holding by the hand a little white 
girl of five or six years old, whom I took to be the daughter 
of the pioneer. A sort of barbarous luxury set off the costume 
of the Indian ; rings of metal were hanging from her nostrils 
and ears ; her hair, which was adorned with glass beads, fell 
loosely upon her shoulders; and I saw that she was not 
married, for she still wore the necklace of shells which the 

in history. For more than two hundred years the wandering tribes of 
North America have had daily intercourse with the whites, and they have 
never derived from them either a custom or an idea. Yet the Europe¬ 
ans have exercised a powerful influence over the savages : they have 
made them more licentious, but not more European. In the summer 
of 1831, I happened to be beyond Lake Michigan, at a place called 
Green Bay, which serves as the extreme frontier between the United 
States and the Indians on the northwestern side. Here I became ac¬ 
quainted with an American officer. Major H., who, after talking to me 
at length on the inflexibility of the Indian character, related the follow¬ 
ing fact: “ I formerly knew a young Indian,” said he, “ who had been 
educated at a college in New England, where he had greatly distin¬ 
guished himself, and had acquired the external appearance of a member 
of civilized society. When the war broke out between ourselves and 
the English, in 1810, I saw this young man again; he was serving in 
our army at the head of the warriors of his tribe; for the Indians were 
admitted among the ranks of the Americans, upon condition that they 
would abstain from their horrible custom of scalping their victims. On 
the evening of the battle of * * *, C. came and sat himself down by the 
fire of our bivouac. I asked him what had been his fortune that day: 
he related his exploits ; and growing warm and animated by the recol¬ 
lection of them, he concluded by suddenly opening the breast of his 
coat, saying, ‘You must not betray me—see here!’ And I actually 
beheld,” said the major, “ between his body and his shirt, the skin and 
hair of an English head still dripping with gore.” 



340 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


bride always deposites on the nuptial couch. The negress 
was clad in squalid European garments. 

They all three came and seated themselves upon the banks 
of the fountain ; and the young Indian, taking the child in her 
arms, lavished upon her such fond caresses as mothers give; 
while the negress endeavored by various little artifices to 
attract the attention of the young creole. The child displayed 
in her slightest gestures a consciousness of superiority which 
formed a strange contrast with her infantine weakness ; as if 
she received the attentions of her companions with a sort of 
condescension. 

The negress was seated on the ground before her mistress, 
watching her smallest desires, and apparently divided between 
strong atfection for the child and servile fear; while the savage 
displayed, in the midst of her tenderness, an air of freedom 
and of pride which was almost ferocious. I had approached 
the group, and I contemplated them in silence; but my 
curiosity was probably displeasing to the Indian woman, for 
she suddenly rose, pushed the child roughly from her, and 
giving me an angry look, plunged into the thicket. 

I had often chanced to see individuals met together in the 
same place, who belonged to the three races of men which 
people North America. I had perceived from many different 
results the preponderance of the whites. But in the picture 
which I have just been describing there was something pecu¬ 
liarly touching ; a bond of affection here united the oppressors 
with the oppressed, and the effort of Nature to bring them 
together rendered still more striking the immense distance 
placed between them by prejudice and by law. 


THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CONDITION OF THE IN¬ 
DIAN TRIBES WHICH^INHABIT THE TERRITORY POSSESSED BY 
THE UNION. 

Gradual disappearance of the native Tribes.—Manner in which it 
takes place.—Miseries accompanying the forced Migrations of the 
Indians.—The Savages of North America had only two ways of es¬ 
caping Destruction ; War or Civilisation.—They are no longer able 
to make War.—Reasons why they refused to become civilized when 
it was in their Power, and why they cannot become so now that they 
desire it.—Instance of the Creek and Cherokees.—Policy of the par¬ 
ticular States toward these Indians.-Policy of the federal Government. 

None of the Indian tribes which formerly inhabited the ter¬ 
ritory of New England—the Narragansets, the Mohicans, the 



THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 


341 


Pequots—have any existence but in the recollection of man. 
The Lenapes, who received William Penn a hundred and fifty 
years ago upon the banks of the Delaware, have disappeared ; 
and I myself met with the last of the Iroquois, who were 
begging alms. The nations I have mentioned formerly cov¬ 
ered the country to the seacoast; but a traveller at the pre¬ 
sent day must penetrate more than a hundred leagues into 
the interior of the continent to find an Indian. Not only have 
these wild tribes receded, but they are destroyed ;* and as 
they give way or perish, an immense and increasing people 
fills their place. There is no instance on record of so prodi¬ 
gious a growth, or so rapid a destruction ; the manner in 
which the latter change takes place is not difficult to de¬ 
scribe. 

When the Indians were the sole inhabitants of the wilds 
whence they have been expelled, their wants were few. 
Their arms were of their own manufacture, their only drink 
was the water of the brook, and their clothes consisted of the 
skin of animals, whose flesh furnished them with food. 

The Europeans introduced among the savages of North 
America firearms, ardent spirits, and iron : they taught them 
to exchange for manufactured stuffs the rough garments 
which had previously satisfied their untutored simplicity. 
Having acquired new tastes, without the arts by which they 
could be gratified, the Indians were obliged to have recourse 
to the workmanship of the whites ; but in return for their 
productions, the savage had nothing to offer except the rich 
furs which still abounded in his woods. Hence the chase 
became necessary, not merely to provide for his subsistence, 
but in order to procure the only objects of barter which he 
could furnish to Europe.f While the wants of the natives 

* In the thirteen original states, there are only 6,273 Indians re¬ 
maining. (See Legislative Documents, 20th congress. No. 117, 
p. 90.) 

t Messrs. Clarke and Cass, in their report to congress, the 4th Feb¬ 
ruary, 1829, p. 23, expressed themselves thus: “ The time when the 
Indians generally could supply themselves with food and clothing, 
without any of the articles of civilized life, has long since passed away. 
The more remote tribes, beyond the Mississippi, who live where im¬ 
mense herds of buffalo are yet to be found, and who follow those ani¬ 
mals in their periodical migrations, could more easily than any others 
recur to the habits of their ancestors, and live without the white man 
or any of his manufactures. But the buffalo is constantly receding. 
The smaller animals—the bear, the deer, the beaver, the otter, the 
muskrat, &c., principally minister to the comfort and support of the 
Indians; and these cannot be taken without guns, ammunition, and 
traps. 


342 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


were thus increasing, their resources continued to diminish. 
From the moment when a European settlement is formed 
in the neighborhood of the territory occupied by the Indi¬ 
ans, the beasts of chase take the alarm.* Thousands of 
savages, wandering in the forest and destitute of any fixed 
dwelling, did not disturb them ; but as soon as the contin¬ 
uous sounds of European labor are heard in the neighbor¬ 
hood, they begin to flee away, and retire to the west, where 
their instinct teaches them that they will find deserts of 
immeasurable extent. “ The buffalo is constantly reced¬ 
ing,” say Messrs. Clarke and Cass in their Report of the 
year 1829 ; “ a few years since they approached the base 
of the Alleghany ; and a few years hence they may even 
be rare upon the immense plains which extend to the base 
of the Rocky mountains.” I have been assured that this 
effect of the approach of the whites is often felt at two 
hundred leagues’ distance from the frontier. 'Their influ¬ 
ence is thus exerted over tribes whose name is unknown 
to them, and who suffer the evils of usurpation long before 
they are acquainted with the authors of their distress, j* 

Bold adventurers soon penetrate into the country the In¬ 
dians have deserted, and when they have advanced about 
fifteen or twenty leagues from the extreme frontiers of the 
whites, they begin to build habitations for civilized beings 

Among the northwestern Indians particularly, the labor of supply¬ 
ing a family with food is excessive. Day after day is spent by the 
hunter without success, and during this interval his family must sub¬ 
sist upon bark or roots, or perish. Want and misery are around them 
and among them. Many die every winter from actual starvation.” 

The Indians will not live as Europeans live; and yet they can nei¬ 
ther subsist without them, nor exactly after the fashion of their fathers. 
This is demonstrated by a fact which I likewise give upon official au¬ 
thority. Some Indians of a tribe on the banks of Lake Superior had 
killed a European; the American government interdicted all traffic 
with the tribe to which the guilty parties belonged, until they were 
delivered up to justice. This measure had the desired effect. 

* “ Five years ago,” says Volney in his Tableaux des Etats Unis, p. 
370, “ingoing from Vincennes to Kaskaskia, a territory which now 
forms part of the State of Illinois, but which at the time I mention 
was completely wild (1797), you could not cross a prairie without see¬ 
ing herds of from four to five hundred buffaloes. There are now none 
remaining; they swam across the Mississippi to escape from the 
hunters, and more particularly from the bells of the American cows.” 

t The truth of what I here advance may be easily proved by con¬ 
sulting the tabular statement of Indian tribes inhabiting the United 
States, and their territories. (Legislative Documents, 20th congress. 
No. 117, pp. 90-105.) It is there shown that the tribes of America are 
rapidly decreasing, although the Europeans are at a considerable dis¬ 
tance from them. 


THS THRfiE RACE^ IKHABITIMa THE S. 


343 


in the midst of the wilderness. This is done without diffi¬ 
culty, as the territory of a hunting nation is ill defined; 
it is the common property of the tribe, and belongs to no 
one in particular, so that individual interests are not con¬ 
cerned in the protection of any part of it- 

A few European families, settled in different situations 
at a considerable distance from each other, soon drive away 
the wild animals which remain between their places of 
abode- The Indians, who had previously lived in a sort of 
abundance, then find it difficult to subsist, and still more diffi¬ 
cult to procure the articles of barter which they stand in 
need of. 

To drive away their game is to deprive them of the means 
of existence, as effectually as if the fields of our agricultu¬ 
rists were stricken with barrenness ; and they are reduced, 
like famished wolves, to prowl through the forsaken woods in 
quest of prey. Their instinctive love of their country at¬ 
taches them to the soil which gave them birth,* even after it 
has ceased to yield anything but misery and death. At 
length they are compelled to acquiesce, and to depart: they 
follow the traces of the elk, the buffalo, and the beaver, and 
are guided by those wild animals in the choice of their future 
country. Properly speaking, therefore, it is not the Euro¬ 
peans who drive away the native inhabitants of America ; it 
rs famine which compels them to recede ; a happy distinction, 
which had escaped the casuists of former times, and for which 
we are indebted to modern discovery. 

It is impossible to conceive the extent of the sufferings 
which attend these forced emigrations- They are under¬ 
taken by a people already exhausted and reduced; and the 
countries to which the new-comers betake themselves are 
inhabited by other tribes v/hich receive them with jealous 
hostility- Hunger is in the rear, war awaits them, and 
misery besets them on all sides. In the hope of escaping 
from such a host of enemies, they separate, and each indi¬ 
vidual endeavors to procure the means of supporting his ex¬ 
istence in solitude and secresy, living in the immensity of 

* The Indians,” says Messrs. Clarke and Cass in their report to 
congress, p- 15 , “are attached to their country by the same feelings 
which bind us to ours ; and, besides, there are certain superstitious 
notions connected with the alienation of what the Great Spirit gave to 
their ancestors, which operate strongly upon the tribes who have 
made few or no cessions, but which are gradually weakened as our in¬ 
tercourse with them is extended. ‘ We will not sell the spot which 
contains the bones of our fathers,’ is almost always the first answer to 
a proposition for a sale.” 


344 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


the desert like an outcast in civilized society. The social tie, 
which distress had long since weakened, is then dissolved ; 
they have lost their country, and their people soon deserts 
them; their very families are obliterated ; the names they 
bore in common are forgotten, their language perishes, and 
all the traces of their origin disappear. Their nation has 
ceased to exist, except in the recollection of the antiquaries 
of America auid a few of the learned of Europe. 

I should be sorry to have my reader suppose that I am col¬ 
oring the picture too highly : I saw with my own eyes seve¬ 
ral of the cases of misery which I have been describing ; 
and I was the witness of sufferings which I have not the 
power to portray. 

At the end of the year 1831, while I was on the left bank 
of the Mississippi, at a place named by Europeans Memphis, 
there arrived a numerous band of Choctaws (or Chactas, as 
they are called by the French in Louisiana). These savages 
had left their country, and were endeavoring to gain the right 
bank of the Mississippi, where they hoped to find an asylum 
which had been promised them by the American government. 
It was then in the middle of winter, and the cold was unu¬ 
sually severe; the snow had frozen hard upon the ground, 
and the river was drifting huge masses of ice. The Indians 
had their families with them ; and they brought in tlieir train 
the wounded and the sick, with children newly born, and old 
men upon the verge of death. They possessed neither tents 
nor wagons, but only their arms and some provisions. I saw 
them embark to pass the mighty river, and never will that 
solemn spectacle fade from my remembrance. No cry, no 
sob was heard among the assembled crowd : all were silent. 
Their calamities were of ancient date, and they knew them 
to be irremediable. The Indians had all stepped into the 
bark which was to carry them across, but their dogs remained 
upon the bank. As soon as these animals perceived that their 
masters were finally leaving the shore, they set up a dismal 
howl, and plunging all together into t!ie icy waters of the 
Mississippi, they swam after the boat. 

The ejectment of the Indians very otlen takes place at the 
present day, in a regular, and, as it were, a legal manner. 
When the European population begins to approach the limit 
of the desert inhabited by a savage tribe, the government of 
the United States usually despatches envoys to them, who 
assemble the Indians in a large plain, and having first eaten 
and drunk with them, accost them in the following manner: 
“ What have you to do in the land of your fathers 1 Before 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 


345 


long you must dig up their bones in order to live. In what 
respect is the country you inhabit better than another ? Are 
there no woods, marshes, or prairies, except where you dwell ? 
And can you live nowhere but under your own sun ? Beyond 
those mountains which you see at the horizon, beyond the lake 
which bounds your territory on the west, there lie vast coun- 
tries where beasts of chase are found in great abundance j 
sell your land to us, and go to live happily in those solitudes.” 
After holding this language, they spread before the eyes of 
the Indians fire-arms, woollen garments, kegs of brandy, 
glass necklaces, bracelets of tinsel, ear-rings, and looking- 
glasses.* If, when they have beheld all these riches, they 
still hesitate, it is insinuated that they have not the means 
of refusing their required consent, and that the govern- 
ment itself will not long have the power of protecting them in 
their rights. What are they to do ? Half convinced and 
half compelled, they go to inhabit new deserts, where the im¬ 
portunate whites will not let them remain ten years in tran- 
quillity. In this manner do the Americans obtain at a very 
low price whole provinces, which the richest sovereigns of 
Europe could not purchase.* 

* See in the legialative documents of congress (Doc. 117), the narra¬ 
tive of what takes place on these occasions. This curious passage is 
from the abovementioned report, made to congress by Messrs. Clarke 
and Cass, in February, 1829. Mr. Cass is now secretary of war. 

“ The Indians,” says the report, “ reach the treaty-ground poor, and 
almost naked. Large quantities of goods are taken there by the traders, 
and are seen and examined by the Indians. The women and children 
become importunate to have their wants supplied, and their influence 
is soon exerted to induce a sale. Their improvidence is habitual and 
unconquerable. The gratification of his immediate wants and desires 
is the ruling passion of an Indian: the expectation of future advantages 
seldom produces much effect. The experience of the past is lost, and 
the prospects of the future disregarded. It would be utterly hopeless 
to demand a cession of land unless the means were at hand of gratify¬ 
ing their immediate Wyants; and when their condition and circum¬ 
stances are fairly considered, it ought not to surprise us that they are 
so anxious to relieve themselves.” 

t On the J 9th of May, 1830, Mr. Edward Everett affirmed before the 
house of representatives, that the Americans had already acquired by 
treaty,, to tne east and west of the Mississippi, 230,000,000 of acres. 
In ISOS, the Osages gave up 48,000,000 acres for an annual payment 
of 1,000 dollars. In 1818, the Quapaws yielded up 29,000,000 acres 
for 4,000 dollars. They reserved for themselves a territory of 1,000,000 
acres for a hunting-ground. A solemn oath was taken that it should 
be respected : but before long it was invaded like the rest. 

Mr. Bell, in his “ Report of the Committee on Indian Affairs,” Feb¬ 
ruary 24th, 1830, has these Words: “To pay an Indian tribe what 
their ancient hunting-grounds are worth to them, after the game is 
fled or destroyed, as a mode of appropriating wild lands claimed by In- 


346 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


These are great evils, and it must be added that they ap¬ 
pear to me to be irremediable. 1 believe that the Indian 
nations of North America are doomed to perish : and that 
whenever the Europeans shall be established on the shores of 
the Pacific ocean, that race of men will be no more.* The 
Indians had only the two alternatives of war or civilisation ; 
in other words, they must either have destroyed the Europe¬ 
ans or become their equals. 

At the first settlement of the colonies they might have 
found it possible, by uniting their forces, to deliver themselves 
from the small bodies of strangers who landed on their conti¬ 
nent.f They several times attempted to do it, and were on 
the point of succeeding; but the disproportion of their 
resources, at the present day, when compared with those of 
the whites, is too great to allow such an enterprise to be 
thought of. Nevertheless, there do arise from time to time 
among the Indians men of penetration, who foresee the final 
destiny which awaits the native population, and who, exert 
themselves to unite all the tribes in common hostility to the 
Europeans; but their efforts are unavailing. Those tribes 
which are in the neighborhood of the whites are too much 
weakened to offer an effectual resistance ; while the others, 
giving way to that childish carelessness of the morrow which 
characterizes savage life, wait for the near approach of dan- 

dians, has been found more convenient, and certainly it is more agree¬ 
able, to the forms of justice, as well as more merciful, than to assert the 
possession of them by the sword. Thus the practice of buying Indian 
titles is but the substitute which humanity and expediency have im¬ 
posed, in place of the sword, in arriving at the actual enjoyment of 
property claimed by the right of discovery, and sanctioned by the natu¬ 
ral superiority allowed to the claims of civilized communities over 
those of savage tribes. Up to the present time, so invariable has been 
the operation of certain causes, first in diminishing the value of forest 
lands to the Indians, and secondly in disposing them to sell readily, 
that the plan of buying their right of occupancy has never threatened 
to retard, in any perceptible degree, the prosperity of any of the 
states. ’ (Legislative documents, 21st congress. No. 227, p. 0.) 

* This seems, indeed, to be the opinion of almost all the American 
statesmen. “ Judging of the future by the past,” says Mr. Cass, “ we 
cannot err in anticipating a progressive diminution of their numbers, 
and their eventual extinction, unless our border should become sta¬ 
tionary, and they be removed beyond it, or unless some radical change 
should take place in the principles of our intercourse with them, 
which it is easier to hope for than to expect.” 

t Among other warlike enterprises, there was 'one of the Wara- 
panoags, and other confederate tribes, under Metacom in 1675, against 
the colonists of New England; the English were also engaged in war 
in Virginia in 1622 


'1)12 S» 


34T 


THE TKRES UWK’IlXDi'l 

before the.)' prepare to meet it-: some are unable, the 
others are unwilling to exert themselves. 

It is easy to foresee that the Indians will never conform to 
civilisation ; or that it will be too late> whenever they may be 
inclined to make the experiment. 

Civilisation is the result of a long social process which 
takes place in the same spot, and is handed down from one 
generation to another, each one profiting by the experience of 
the last. Of all nations, those submit to civilisation with the 
most difficulty, which habitually live by the chase. Pastoral 
tribes, indeed, often change their place of abode ; but they 
follow in regular order in their migrations, and often return 
again to their old stations, while the dwelling of the hunter 
varies with that of the animals he pursues. 

Several attempts have been made to diffuse knowledge 
among the Indians, without controlling their wandering pro¬ 
pensities ; by the Jesuits in Canada, and by the puritans in 
New England ;* but none of these endeavors were crowned 
by any lasting success. Civilisation began in the cabin, but 
it soon retired to expire in the woods ; th-e great error of tiiiese 
legislators of the Indians was their not understanding, that in 
order to succeed in civilizing a people, it is first necessary to 
fix it; which cannot be done without inducing it to cultivate 
the soil: the Indians ought in the first place to have been ac* 
customed to agriculture. But not only are they destitute of 
this indispensable preliminary to civilisation, they would even 
have great difficulty in acquiring it. Men who have once 
abandoned themselves to the restless and adventurous life of 
the hunter, feel an insurmountable disgust for the constant 
and regular labor which tillage requires. We see this 
proved in the bosom of our own society ; but it is far more 
visible among peoples whose partiality for the chase is a part 
of their natural character. 

Independently of this general difficulty, there is another, 
which applies peculiarly to the Indians ; they consider labor 
not merely as an evil, l3ut as a disgrace ; so that their pride 
prevents them from becoming civilized, as much as their 
indolence.f 

* See the Histoire de la Nouvelle France,” by Charlevoix, and 
the work entitled Lettres Edifiantes.” 

t “ In all the tribes,” says Voiney, in his “ Tableau des Etats Unis,” 
p. 423, “ there still exists a generation of old warriors, who cannot 
forbear, when they see their countrymen using the hoe, from exclaim¬ 
ing against the degradation of ancient manners, and asserting that the 
savages owe their decline to these innovations : adding, that they have 
only to return to (heir primitive habits, in order to recover their power 
and' their glory.” 




348 


PRESEx^T a:<d FUTUKE COXDmOISi or 


There is no Indian so wretched as not to retain, under his> 
hut of bark, a lofty idea of his personal worth; he considers 
the cares of industry and labor as degrading occupations ; he 
compares the husbandman to the ox which traces the furrow ; 
and even in our most ingenious handicraft, he can see nothing 
bm the labor of slaves. Not that he is devoid of admiration 
ifbr the power and intellectual greatness of the whites ; but 
Ulthough the result of our etforts surprises him, he contemns 
the means by which we obtain it; and while he acknowledges 
our ascendency, he still believes in his superiority. War and 
hunting are the only pursuits which appear to him worthy to 
be the occupations of a man,* The Indian, in the dreary 
solitude of his woods, cherishes the same ideas, the same 
opinions, as the noble of the middle ages in his castle, and he 
only requires to become a conqueror to complete the resem¬ 
blance ; thus, however strange it may seem, it is in the forests 
of the New World, and not among the Europeans who people 
its coasts, that the ancient prejudices of Europe are still in 
existence. 

More than once, in the course of this work, I have endea^ 
vored to explain the prodigious influence which the social 
condition appears to exercise upon the laws and the manners 
of men ; and I beg to add a few words on the same subject. 
When I perceive the resemblance which exists between the 
political institutions of our ancestors, the Germans, and of the 
wandering tribes of North America : between the customs 
described by Tacitus, and those of which I have sometimes 
been a witness, I cannot help thinking that the same cause 
has brought abont the same results in bc*h hemispheres; and 
that in the midst of the apparent diversity of human affairs, a 
certain number of primary facts may be discovered, fronr 
which all the others are derived. In what we tisnaliy call 
the German institutions, then, I am mclined only to perceive 

* The following description occurs- in an official document r Until 
a young man has been engaged wdth an enemy, and has performed 
some acts of Valor, he gains no considei'ation, but is regarded nearly as 
a woman. In their great war-dances all the w^arriors in succession 
strike the post , as it is called, and recount their exploits. On these 
occasions their auditory consists of the kinsmen, friend9,.and comrades 
of the nanator. The profound impression which his discourse pro¬ 
duces on them is manifested by the silent attention if receives, and by 
the loud shouts' which hail its termination. Tlie young man who finds 
himself at such a meeting without anything to recount, is very un¬ 
happy ; and instances have sometimes occurred of young Warriors 
whose passions had been thus inflamed, quitting the war-dance sud¬ 
denly, and going off* alone to seek for trophies which they might exhi¬ 
bit, and adventures which they might be allowed to relate. 


THfi RACIiS t. S. 

barbarian habits; and the opinions of savages^ in what w€ 
style feudal principles^ 

However strongly the Vices and prejudices of the North 
American Indians may be opposed to their becoming agricub 
tural and civilized, necessity sometimes obliges them to it^ 
Several of the southern nations, and among them the Cherokees 
and the Creeks,* were sUfroUnded by Europeans, who had 
landed on the shores of the Atlantic, and who, either descend^ 
ing the Ohio of proceeding up the Mississippi, arrived simul¬ 
taneously upon theif borders. These tribes have not been 
driven from place to place, like their northern brethren; but 
they have been gradually enclosed within narrow limits, like 
the game within the thicket before the huntsmen plunge into 
the interior. The Indians, who were thus placed between 
civilisation and death, foUnd themselves obliged to live by 
Ignominious labor like the whites. They took to agriculture, 
and without entirely forsaking their old habits or manners, 
sacrificed only as much as was necessary to their existence^ 

The Cherokees went further; they created a written lan¬ 
guage ; established a permanent form of government; and 
as everything proceeds rapidly in the New World, before 
they had all of them clothes, they set up a newspaper, j* 

The growth of European habits has been remarkably ac¬ 
celerated among these Indians by the mixed race which has 
Sprung up-i Deriving intelligence from the father^s side, 
without entirely losing the savage customs of the mother, the 
half-blood forms the natural link between civilisation and 

* These nations are now swallowed up in the States of Georgia, 
Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. There were formerly in the 
South four great nations (remnants of Which still exist), the Choctaws, 
the Chickasaws, the Creeks, and the Cherokees^ The remnants of 
these four nations amounted, in 1830, to about 19/)00 individuals. It is 
Computed that there are noW remaining in the territory occupied or 
claimed by the Anglo-American Union about 300,000 Indians. (See 
proceedings of the Indian board iri the city of New York.) The official 
documents supplied to congress make the number amount to 313,130. 
The reader who is curious to know the' names and numerical Strength 
of all the tribes which inhabit the Anglo-American territory, should 
consult the documents I refer to. (LegislativO Documents, 2'Sth con¬ 
gress, No. 117, })p. 90-*105.) 

t I brought back with me to France, one or two copies of this 
singular publication. 

I See in the report of the committee bn Indian affairs, 2fst congress. 
No. 227, p. 23, the reasons for the multiplication of Indians of mixed 
blood among the Cherokees. The principal cause dates from the war 
of independence. Many Anglo-Americans of Georgia, having taken the 
side of England, were obliged to retreat among the Indians, wher^ 
they married. 


31 





350 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


barbarism. Wherever this race has multiplied, the savage 
state has become modified, and a great change has taken 
place in the manners of the people.* 

The success of tlic Cherokees proves that the Indians are 
capable of civilisation, but it does not prove that they will 
succeed in it. The difficulty which the Indians find in sub¬ 
mitting to civilisation proceeds from the influence of a general 
cause, which it is almost impossible for them to escape. An 
attentive survey of history demonstrates that, in general, bar¬ 
barous nations have raised themselves to civilisation by de¬ 
grees, and by their own efforts. Whenever they derived 
knowledge from a foreign people, they stood toward it in the 
relation of conquerors, not of a conquered nation. When the 
conquered nation is enlightened, and the conquerors are half 
savage, as in the case of the invasion of Rome by the north¬ 
ern nations, or that of China by the Moguls, the power which 
victory bestows upon the barbarian is sufficient to keep up 
his importance among civilized men, and permit him to rank 
as their equal, until he becomes their rival: the one has 
might on his side, the other has intelligence; the former ad¬ 
mires the knowledge and the arts of the conquered, the latter 
envies the power of the conquerors. The barbarians at 
length admit civilized man into their palaces, and he in turn 
opens his schools to the barbarians. But when the side on 

* Unhappily the mixed race has been less numerous and less influential 
in North America than in any other country. The American continent 
was peopled by two great nations of Europe, the French and the Eng¬ 
lish. The former were not slow in connecting themselves with the 
daughters of the natives; but there was an unfortunate affinity between 
the Indian character and their own: instead of giving the tastes and 
habits of civilized life to the savages, the French too often grew pas¬ 
sionately fond of the state of wild freedom they found them in. They 
became the most dangerous of the inhabitants of the-desert, and won the 
friendship of the Indian by exaggerating his vices and his virtues. M. 
de Senonville, the governor of Canada, wrote thus to Louis XIV., in 
1685 : “ It has long been believed that in order tQ civilize the savages 
we ought to draw them nearer to us, but there is every reason to sup¬ 
pose we have been mistaken. Tliose which have been brought into 
contact with us have not become French, and the French who have 
lived among them are changed into savages, affecting to live and dress 
like them.” (History of New France, by Charlevoix, vol. ii., p. 315). 
The Englishman, on the contrary, continuing obstinately attached to 
the customs and the most insignificant habits of his forefathers, has re¬ 
mained in the midst of the American solitudes just what he was in 
the bosom of European cities ; he would not allow of any communica¬ 
tion with savages whom he despised, and avoided with care the union 
of his race with theirs. Thus, while the French exercised no salutary 
influence over the Indians, the English have always remained alien 
from them. 


THE THREE RACKS INHABITING THE U. S. 


351 


which the physical force lies, also possesses an intellectual 
preponderance, the conquered party seldom becomes civilized ; 
it retreats, or is destroyed. It may therefore be said, in a 
general way, that savages go forth in arms to seek know¬ 
ledge, but that they do not receive it when it comes to them. 

If the Indian tribes which now inhabit the heart of the con¬ 
tinent could summon up energy enough to attempt to civilize 
themselves, they might possibly succeed. Superior already 
to the barbarous nations which surround them, they would 
gradually gain strength and experience ; and when the Eu¬ 
ropeans should appear upon their borders, they would be in 
a state, if not to maintain their independence, at least to as¬ 
sert their right to the soil, and to incorporate themselves with 
the conquerors. But it is tlie misfortune of Indians to be 
brought into contact with a civilized people, which is also (it 
may be owned) the most avaricious nation on the globe, 
while they are still semi-barbarian: to find despots in their 
instructors, and to receive knowledge from the hand of op¬ 
pression. Living in the freedom of the woods, the North 
American Indian was destitute, but he had no feeling of in¬ 
feriority toward any one ; as soon, however, as he desires to 
penetrate into the social scale of the whites, he takes the low¬ 
est rank in society, for he enters ignorant and poor within the 
pale of science and wealth. After having led a life of agita¬ 
tion, beset with evils and dangers, but at the same time filled 
w’ith proud emotions,* he is obliged to submit to a wearisome, 

* There is in the adventurous life of the hunter a certain irresistible 
charm which seizes the heart of man, and carries him away in spite of 
reason and experience. This is plainly shown by the memoirs of 
Tanner. Tanner is a European who was carried away at the age of 
six by the Indians, and has remained thirty years with them in the 
woods. Nothing can be conceived more appalling than the miseries 
which he describes. He tells us of tribes without a chief, families 
without a nation to call their own, men in a state of isolation, wrecks 
of powerful tribes wandering at random amid the ice and snow and 
desolate solitudes of Canada. Hunger and cold pursue them ; every 
day their life is in jeopardy. Among these men manners have lost 
their empire, traditions are without power. They become more and 
more savage. Tanner shared in all these miseries; he was aware of 
his European origin ; he was not kept away from the whites by force ; 
on the contrary, he came every year to trade with them, entered their 
dwellings, and saw their enjoyments ; he knew that whenever he chose 
to return to civilized life, he was perfectly able to do so—and he re¬ 
mained thirty years in the deserts. When he came to civilized socie¬ 
ty, he declared that the rude existence which he described had a 
secret charm for him which he was unable to define: he returned to it 
again and again : at length he abandoned it with poignant regret; and 
when he was at length fixed among the whites, several of his children 
refused to share his tranquil and easy situation. I saw Tanner myself 


m 


?Ri!sfiNT and Future conuition of 


obscurej Rnd degraded state, and to gain the bread which 
hcurishes him by hard and ignoble labor; such are in his 
eyes the only results of which civilisation can boast: and 
even this much he is not sure to obtain. 

When the Indians undertake to imitate their European 
neighboTS) and to till the earth like the settlers, they are im¬ 
mediately exposed to a very formidable competition. The 
White man is skilled in the craft of agriculture ; the Indian is a 
Tough beginner in an aTt with which he is unacquainted. The 
former reaps abundant crops Without difficulty, the latter meets 
with a thousand obstacles in raising the fruits of the earth. 

The European is placed among a population Whose wants 
he knows and partakes. The savage is isolated in the midst 
of a hostile people^ with whose manners, language and laws, 
he is imperfectly acquainted, but without Whose assistance 
he cannot live. He can only procure the materials of 
comfort by bartering his commodities against the goods of the 
European, for the assistance of his countrymen is wholly in¬ 
sufficient to supply his wants. When the Indian wishes to 
sell the produce of his labor, he cannot always meet with a 
purchaser, while the European readily finds a market; and 
the former can only produce at a considerable cost, that 
which the latter Vends at a very low rate. Thus the Indian 
has no sooner escaped those evils to which barbarous nations 
are exposed, than he is subjected to the still greater miseries 
of civilized communities; and he finds it scarcely less diffi¬ 
cult to live in the midst of our abundance, than in the depth 
of his own wilderness. 

He has not yet lost the habits of his erratic life ; the tradi¬ 
tions of his fathers and his passion for the chase are still alive 
within him. The wild enjoyments which formerly animated 
him in the woods painfully excite Ids troubled imagination; 
and his former privations appear to be less keen, his former 
perils less appalling. He contrasts the independence which 
he possessed among his equals with the servile position which 
he occupies in civilized society. On the other hand, the soli¬ 
tudes which were So long his free home are still at hand; a 
few hours’ march will bring him back to them once more. 
The whites offer him a sum, which seems to him to be con¬ 
siderable, for the ground Which he has begun to clear. This 
money of the Europeans may possibly furnish him with the 

at the lower end of Lake Superior ; he seemed to be more like a savage 
than a civilized being. His book is written without either taste or or¬ 
der ; but he gives, even Unconsciously, a lively picture of the prejudices, 
the passions, vices, and, above all, of the destitution in which he lived. 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 


353 


means of a happy and peaceful subsistence in remote regions ; 
and he quits the plough, resumes his native arms, and returns 
to the wilderness for ever.* The condition of the Creeks 
and Cherokees, to which I have already alluded, sufficiently 
corroborates the truth of this deplorable picture. 

The Indians, in the little which they have done, have un¬ 
questionably displayed as much natural genius as the peoples 
of Europe in their most important designs; but nations as 
well as men require time to learn, whatever may be their in¬ 
telligence and their zeal. While the savages were engaged 
in the work of civilisation, the Europeans continued to sur¬ 
round them on every side, and to confine them within nar¬ 
rower limits ; the two races gradually met, and they are now 
in immediate juxtaposition to each other. The Indian is 
already superior to his barbarous parent, but he is still very 
far below diis white neighbor. With their resources and ac¬ 
quired knowledge, the Europeans soon appropriated to them- 

* The destructive influence of highly civilized nations upon others 
which are less so, has been exemplified by the Europeans themselves. 
About a century ago the French founded the town of Vincennes upon 
the Wabash, in the middle of the desert; and they lived there in great 
plenty, until the arrival of the American settlers, who first ruined the 
previous inhabitants by their competition, and afterward purchased 
their lands at a very low rate. At the time when M. de Volney, from 
whom I borrow these details, passed through Vincennes, the number 
of the French was reduced to a hundred individuals, most of whom 
were about to pass over to Louisiana or to Canada. These French 
settlers were worthy people, but idle and uninstructed: they had con¬ 
tracted many of the habits of the savages. The Americans, who were 
perhaps their inferiors in a moral point of view, were immeasurably 
superior to them in intelligence; they were industrious, well-informed, 
rich, and accustomed to govern their own community. 

1 myself saw in Canada, where the intellectual difference between 
the two races is less striking, that the English are the masters of com¬ 
merce and manufacture in the Canadian country, that they spread on 
all sides, and confine the French within limits which scarcely suffice 
to contain them. In like manner, in Louisiana, almost all activity in 
commerce and manufacture centres in the hands of the Anglo-Ameri¬ 
cans. 

But the case of Texas is still more striking: the state of Texas is a 
part of Mexico, and lies upon the frontier between that country and 
the United States. In the course of the last few years the Anglo- 
Americans have penetrated into this province, which is still thinly 
peopled; they purchase land, they produce the" commodities of the 
country, and supplant the original population. It may easily be fore¬ 
seen that if Mexico takes no steps to check this change, the province 
of Texas will very shortly cease to belong to that government. 

If the different degrees, comparatively so light, which exist in Eu¬ 
ropean civilisation, produce results of such magnitude, the conse¬ 
quences which must ensue from the collision of the most perfect 
European civilisation with Indian savages may readily be conceived. 
31 * 



354 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


selves most of the advantages which the natives might have 
derived from the possession of the soil: they have settled in 
the country, they have purchased land at a very low rate or 
have occupied it by force, and the Indians have been ruined 
by a competition which they had not the means of resisting. 
They were isolated in their own country, and their race only 
constituted a colony of troublesome aliens in the midst of a 
numerous and domineering people.* 

Washington said in one of his messages to congress, “ v^'c 
are more enlightened and powerful than the Indian nations, 
we are therefore bound in honor to treat them with kindness 
and even with generosity.” But this virtuous and high- 
minded policy has not been followed. The rapacity of the 
settlers is usually backed by the tyranny of the government. 
Although the Cherokees and the Creeks are estaWished upon 
the territory which they inhabited before the settlement of the 
Europeans, and although the Americans have frequently 
treated with them as with foreign nations, the surrounding 
states have not consented to acknowledge them as^an inde¬ 
pendent people, and attempts have been made to subject 
these children of the woods to Anglo-American magistrates, 
laws, and customs.f Destitution had driven these unfortu- 


* See in the legislative documents (21st congress, No. 89), instances 
of excesses of every kind committed by the whites upon the territory 
of the Indians, either in taking possession of a part of their lands, un¬ 
til compelled to retire by the troops of congress, or carrying off their 
cattle, burning their houses, cutting down their corn, and doing vio¬ 
lence to their persons. 

It appears, nevertheless, from all these documents, that the claims of 
the natives are constantly protected by the government from the abuse 
of force. The Union has a representative agent continually employed 
to reside among the Indians ; and the report of the Cherokee agent, 
which is among the documents I have referred to, is almost always fa¬ 
vorable to the Indians. “ The intrusion of whites,” he says, “ upon 
the lands of the Cherokees would cause ruin to the poor, helpless, and 
inoffensive inhabitants.” And he farther remarks upon the attempt of 
the state of Georgia to establish a division line for the purpose of limit¬ 
ing the boundaries of the Cherokees, that the line drawn having been 
made by the whites, and entirely upon exparte evidence of their seve¬ 
ral rights, was of no validity whatever. 

t In 1829 the state of Alabama divided the Creek territory into 
counties, and subjected the Indian population to the power of Euro¬ 
pean magistrates. 

In 1830 the state of Mississippi assimilated the Choctaws and Chick- 
asaws to the white population, and declared that any of them that 
should take the title of chief would be punished by a fine of 1,000 
dollars and a year’s imprisonment. When these laws were enforced 
upon the Choctaws who inhabited' that district, the tribes assembled, 
their chief communicated to them the intentions of the whites, and 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 


355 


nate Indians to civilisation, and oppression now drives them 
back to thein former condition; many of them abandon the 
soil which they had begun to clear, and return to their savage 
course of life. 

If we consider the tyrannical measures which have been 
adopted by the legislatures of the southern states, the con- 
duct of their governors, and the decrees of their courts of 
justice, we shall be convinced that the entire expulsion of the 
Indians is the final result to which the efforts of their policy 
are directed. The Americans of that part of the Union look 
with jealousy upon the aborigines,* they are aware that these 
tribes have not yet lost the traditions of savage life, and before 
civilisation has permanently fixed them to the soil, it is in¬ 
tended to force them to recede by reducing them to despair. 
The Creeks and Cherokees, oppressed by the several states, 
have appealed to the central government, which is by no 
means insensible to their misfortunes, and is sincerely desir¬ 
ous of saving the remnant of the natives, and of maintaining 
them in the free possession of that territory which the Union 
is pledged to respect.f But the several states oppose so for¬ 
midable a resistance to the execution of this design, that the 
government is obliged to consent to the extirpation of a few 
barbarous tribes in order not to endanger the safety of the 
American Union. 

But the federal government, which is not able to protect 
the Indians, would fain mitigate the hardships of their lot; 
and, with this intention, proposals have been made to transport 
them into more remote regions at the public cost. 

Between the 33d and 37th degrees of north latitude, a vast 
tract of country lies, which has taken the name of Arkansas, 
from the principal river that waters its extent. It is bounded 
on the one side by the confines of Mexico, on the other by the 
Mississippi. Numberless streams cross it in every direction; 
the climate is mild, and the soil productive, but it is only in¬ 


read to them some of the laws to which it was intended that they 
should submit; and they unanimously declared that it was better at 
once to retreat again into the wilds. 

* The Georgians, who are so much annoyed by the proximity of the 
Indians, inhabit a territory which does not at present contain more 
than seven inhabitants to the square mile. In France there are one 
hundred and sixty-two inhabitants to the same extent of country. 

t In 1818 congress appointed commissioners To visit the Arkansas 
territory accompanied by a deputation of Creeks,, Choctaws, and 
Chickasaws. This expedition was commanded by Messrs. Kennerly, 
M’Coy, Wash Hood, and John Bell. See the different reports of the 
commissioners, and their journal, in the documents of congress. No. 87, 
house of representatives. 


356 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


habited by a few wandering hordes of savages. The gov¬ 
ernment of the Union wishes to transport the broken remnants 
of the indigenous population of the south, to the portion of 
this country which is nearest to Mexico, and at a great dis¬ 
tance from the American settlements. 

We were assured, toward the end of the year 1831, that 
10,000 Indians had already gone to the shores of the Arkan¬ 
sas ; and fresh detachments were constantly following them; 
but congress has been unable to excite a unanimous determi¬ 
nation in those whom it is disposed to protect. Some, indeed, 
are willing to quit the seat of oppression, but the most en¬ 
lightened members of the community refuse to abandon their 
recent dwellings and the springing crops ; they are of opinion 
that the work of civilisation, once interrupted, will never be 
resumed; they fear that those domestic habits which have 
been so recently contracted, may be irrecoverably lost in the 
midst of a country which is still barbarous, and where nothing 
is prepared for the subsistence of an agricultural people ; 
they know that their entrance into those wilds will be opposed 
by inimical hordes, and that they have lost the energy of bar¬ 
barians, without acquiring the resources of civilisation to re¬ 
sist their attacks. Moreover the Indians readily discover that 
the settlement which is proposed to them is merely a tempo¬ 
rary expedient. Who can assure them that they will at 
length be allowed to dwell in peace in their new retreat ? 
The United States pledge themselves to the observance of the 
obligation; but the territory which they at present occupy 
was formerly secured to them by the most solemn oaths of 
Anglo-American faith.The American government does not 
indeed rob them of their lands, but it allows perpetual incur¬ 
sions to be made on them. In a few years the same white 
population which now flocks around them, will track them to 
the solitudes of the Arkansas ; they will then be exposed to 
the same evils without the same remedies; and as the limits 

* The fifth article of the treaty made with the Creeks in August, 
1790, is in the following words : “ The United States solemnly guar¬ 
anty to the Creek nation all their land within the limits of the United 
States.” 

The seventh article of the treaty concluded in 1791 with the Chero- 
kees says: “ The United States solemnly guaranty to the Cherokee 
nation all their lands not hereby ceded.” The following article declar¬ 
ed that if any citizen of the United States or other settler not of the 
Indian race, should establish himself upon the territory of the Chero- 
kees, the United States would withdraw their protection from that in¬ 
dividual, and give him up to be punished as the Cherokee nation should 
think fit. ' 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 


357 


of the earth will at last fail them, their only refuge is the 
grave. 

The Union treats the Indians with less cupidity and rigor 
than the policy of the several states, but the two governments 
are alike destitute of good faith. The states extend what 
they are pleased to term the benefits of their laws to the In¬ 
dians, with a belief that the tribes will recede rather than 
submit; and the central government, which promises a per¬ 
manent refuge to these unhappy beings, is well aware of its 
inability to secure it to them.* 

Thus the tyranny of the states obliges the savages to re¬ 
tire, the Union, by its promises and resources, facilitates their 
retreat; and these measures tend to precisely the same end."]* 
“ By the will of our Father in heaven, the governor of the 
whole world,” said the Cherokees in their petition to con¬ 
gress,^ “ the red man of America has become small, and the 
white man great and renowned. When the ancestors of the 
people of these United States first came to the shores of 
America, they found the red man strong: though he was 
ignorant and savage, yet he received them kindly, and gave 
them dry land to rest their weary feet. They met in peace, 
and shook hands in token of friendship. Whatever the white 
man wanted and asked of the Indian, the latter willingly 

* This does not prevent them from promising in the most solemn 
manner to do so. See the letter of the president addressed to the 
Creek Indians, 23d March, 1829. (“ Proceedings of the Indian Board, 

in the City of New York,” p. 5.) “ Beyond the great river Mis¬ 

sissippi, where a part of your nation has gone, your father has pro¬ 
vided a country large enough for all of you, and he advises you to re¬ 
move to it. There your white brothers will not trouble you; they 
will have no claim to the land, and you cam live upon it, you and all 
your children, as long as the grass grows or the water runs, in peace 
and plenty. It will be yours for ever” 

The secretary of war', in a letter written to the Cherokees, April 
18th, 1829 (see the same work, page 6), declares to them that they 
cannot expect to retain possession of the land, at the time occupied by 
them, but gives them the most positive assurance of uninterrupted 
peace if they would remove beyond the Mississippi: as if the power 
which could not grant them protection then, would be able to afford it 
them hereafter! 

t To obtain a correct idea of the policy pursued by the several 
states and the Union with respect to the Indians, it is necessary to 
consult, 1st, “ The laws of the colonial and state governments relating 
to the Indian inhabitants.” (See the legislative documents, 21st con¬ 
gress. No. 319 .) 2d, “The laws of the Union on the same subject,' 

and especially that of March 20th, 1802.” See Story’s Laws of the 
United States.) 3d, “ The report of Mr. Cass, secretary of war, re¬ 
lative to Indian affairs, November 29th, 1823. 

X December 18th, 1829. 


358 PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 

gave. At that time the Indian was the lord, and the white 
man the suppliant. But now the scene has changed. The 
strength of the red man has become weakness. As his 
neighbors increased in numbers, his power became less and 
less, and now, of the many and powerful tribes who once 
covered the United States, only a few are to be seen—a few 
whom a sweeping pestilence had left. The northern tribes, 
who were once so numerous and powerful, are now nearly 
extinct. Thus it has happened to the red man of America. 
Shall we, who are remnants, share the same fate ? 

“ The land on which we stand we have received as an in¬ 
heritance from our fathers who possessed it from time imme¬ 
morial, as a gift from our common Father in heaven. They 
bequeathed it to us as their children, and we have sacredly 
kept it, as containing their remains. This right of inherit¬ 
ance we have never ceded, nor ever forfeited. Permit us to 
ask what better right can the people have to a country than 
the right of inheritance and immemorial peaceable posses¬ 
sion ? We know it is said of late by the state of Georgia 
and by the executive of the United States, that we have for¬ 
feited this right ; but we think it is said gratuitously. At 
what time have we made the forfeit ? What great crime 
have we committed, whereby we must for ever be divested 
of our country and rights? Was it when we were hostile 
to the United States, and took part with the king of Great 
Britain, during the struggle for independence ? If so, why was 
not this forfeiture declared in the first treaty which followed 
that war ? Why was not such an article as the following in¬ 
serted in the treaty : ‘ The United States give peace to the 
Cherokees, but for the part they took in the last war, declare 
them to be but tenants at will, to be removed when the con¬ 
venience of the states, within whose chartered limits they 
live, shall require it ?’ That was the proper time to assume 
such a possession. But it w'as not thought of, nor would our 
forefathers have agreed to any treaty, whose tendency was 
to deprive^them of their rights and their country.” 

Such is the language of the Indians : their assertions are 
true, their forebodings inevitable. From whichever side we 
consider the destinies of the aborigines of North America, 
their calamities appear to be irremediable : if they continue 
barbarous, they are forced to retire : if they attempt to civil-'' 
ize their manners, the contact of a more civilized community 
subjects them to oppression and destitution. They perish if 
they continue to wander from waste to waste, and if they 
attempt to settle, they still must perish ; the assistance of Eu- 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 


359 


ropeans is necessary to instruct them, but the approach of 
Europeans corrupts and repels them into savage life ; they 
refuse to change their habits as long as their solitudes are 
their own, and it is too late to change them when they are 
constrained to submit. 

The Spaniards pursued the Indians with blood-hounds, like 
wild beasts; they sacked the New World with no more tem¬ 
per or compassion than a city taken by storm : but destruc¬ 
tion must cease, and phrensy be stayed ; the remnant of the 
Indian population, which had escaped the massacre, mixed 
with its conquerors and adopted in the end their religion and 
their manners.* The conduct of the Americans of the 
United States toward the aborigines is characterized, on the 
other hand, by a singular attachment to the formalities of 
law. Provided that the Indians retain their barbarous con¬ 
dition, the Americans take no part in their affairs : they treat 
them as independent nations, and do not possess themselves 
of their hunting grounds without a treaty of purchase; and 
if an Indian nation happens to be so encroached upon as to 
be unable to subsist upon its territory, they afford it brotherly 
assistance in transporting it to a grave sufficiently remote 
from the land of its fathers. 

The Spaniards were unable to exterminate the Indian race V 
by those unparalleled atrocities which brand them with in¬ 
delible shame, nor did they even succeed in wholly depriving 
it of its-rights ; but the Americans of the United States have 
accomplished this twofold purpose with singular felicity; 
tranquilly, legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, 
and without violating a single great principle of morality in 
the eyes of the world.f It is impossible to destroy men with 
more respect for the laws of humanity. 

* The honor of this result is, however, by no means due to the 
Spaniards. If the Indian tribes had not been tillers of the ground at 
the time of the arrival of the Europeans, they would unquestionably 
have been destroyed in South as well as in North America. 

t See among other documents, the report made by Mr. Bell in the 
name of the committee on Indian affairs, Feb. 24th, 1830, in which it 
is most logically established and most learnedly proved, that “ the 
fundamental principle, that the Indians had no right by virtue of their 
ancient possession either of will or sovereignty, has never been aban¬ 
doned either expressly or by implication.” 

In perusing this report, which is evidently drawn up by an able 
hand, one is astonished at the facility with which the author gets rid 
of all arguments founded upon reason and natural right, which he 
designates as abstract and theoretical principles. The more I con¬ 
template the difference between civilized and uncivilized man with 
regard to the principles of justice, the more I observe that the former 
contests the justice of those rights, which the latter simply violates. 



360 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


SITUATION OF • THE BLACK POPULATION^IN THE UNITED STATES, 
AND DANGERS WITH WHICH ITS PRESENCE THREATENS THE 
WHITES. 

Why it is more difficult to abolish Slavery, and to efface all Vestiges 
of it among the Moderns, than it was among the Ancients.—In the 
United States the prejudices of the Whites against the Blacks seem 
to increase in Proportion as Slavery is abolished.—Situation of the 
Negroes in the Northern and Southern States.—Why the Americans 
abolish Slavery.—Servitude, which debases the Slave, impoverishes 
the Master.—Contrast between the left and the right Bank of the 
Ohio.—To what attributable.—The black Race, as well as Slavery, 
recedes toward the South.—Explanation of this fact.—Difficulties 
attendant upon the Abolition of Slavery in the South.—Dangers to 
come.—General Anxiety.—Foundation of a black Colony in Africa. 
—Why the Americans of the South increase the Hardships of 
Slavery, while they are distressed at its Continuance. 

The Indians will perish in the same isolated condition in 
which they have lived ; but the destiny of the negroes is in 
some measure interwoven with that of the Europeans. These 
two races are attached to each other without intermingling ; 
and they are alike unable entirely to separate or to combine. 
The most formidable of all the ills which threaten the future 
existence of the United States, arises from the presence of a 
black population upon its territory ; and in contemplating the 
causes of the present embarrassments or of the future dan¬ 
gers of the United States, the observer is invariably led to 
consider this as a primary fact. 

The permanent evils to which mankind is subjected are 
usually produced by the vehement or the increasing efforts 
of men ; but there is one calamity which penetrated furtively 
into the world, and which was at first scarcely distinguish¬ 
able amid the ordinary abuses of power: it originated with 
an individual whose name history has not preserved ; it was 
wafted like some accursed germ upon a portion of the soil, 
but it afterward nurtured itself, grew without effort, and 
spreads naturally with the society to which it belongs. I 
need scarcely add that this calamity is slavery, Christianity, 
suppressed slavery, but the Christians of the sixteenth cen¬ 
tury re-established it—as an exception, indeed, to their social 
system, and restricted to one of the races of mankind ; but 
the wound thus inflicted upon humanity, though less exten¬ 
sive, was at the same time rendered far more’idifficult of cure. 

It is important to make an accurate distinction between 
slavery itself, and its consequences. The immediate evils 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 


361 


which are produced by slavery were very nearly the same in 
antiquity as they are among the moderns; but the conse¬ 
quences of these evils were different. The slave, among the 
ancients, belonged to the same race as his master, and he was 
often the superior of the two in education* and instruction. 
Freedom was the only distinction between them; and when 
freedom was conferred, they were easily confounded together. 
The ancients, then, had a very simple means of avoiding 
slavery and its evil consequences, which was that of enfran¬ 
chisement ; and they succeeded as soon as they adopted this 
measure generally. Not but, in ancient states, the vestiges 
of servitude subsisted for some time after servitude was abol- 
lihed. There is a natural prejudice which prompts men to 
despise whomsoever has been their inferior, long after he has 
become their equal ; and the real inequality which is pror 
duced by fortune or by law, is always succeeded by an ima¬ 
ginary inequality which is implanted in the manners of the 
people. Nevertheless, this secondary consequence of slavery 
was limited to a certain term among the ancients ; for the 
freedman bore so entire a resemblance to those born free, that 
it soon becani^impossible to distinguish him from among 
them. 

The greatest difficulty in antiquity was that of altering the • 
law ; among the moderns it is of altering the manners ; and, 
as far as we are concerned, the real obstacles begin where 
those of the ancients left off. This arises from the circum¬ 
stance that, among the moderns, the abstract and transient 
fact of slavery is fatally united to the physical and permanent 
fact of color. The tradition of slavery dishonors the race, 
and the peculiarity of the race perpetuates the tradition of 
slavery. No African has ever voluntarily emigrated to the 
shores of the New World ; whence it must be inferred, that 
all the blacks who are now to be found in that hemisphere 
are either slaves or freedmen. Thus the negro transmits 
the eternal mark of his ignominy to all his descendants ; and 
although the law may abolish slavery, God alone can obliter¬ 
ate the traces of its existence. 

The modern slave differs from his master not only in his 
condition, but in his origin. You may set the negro free, but 
you cannot make him^ptherwise than an alien to the European.- 
Nor is this all; we scarcely acknowledge the common fea- 

* It is well known that several of the most distinguished authors of 
antiquity, and among them .^sop and Terence, were or had been slaves. 
Slaves were not always taken from barbarous nations, and the chances 
of war reduced highly civilized men to servitude. 

32 


362 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


tures of mankind in this child of debasement whom slavery 
has brought among' us. ' His physiognomy is to our eyes hide* 
ous, his understanding weak, his tasteslow * and we are al¬ 
most inclined to look upon him as a being intermediate be¬ 
tween man and the brutes.The moderns, then, after they 
have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend 
against, which are less easy to attack, and far less easy to 
conquer, than the mere fact of servitude: the prejudice of 
the master, the prejudice of the race, and the prejudice of 
color. 

It is difficult for us, who have had the good fortune to be 
born among men like ourselves by nature, and equal to our¬ 
selves by law, to conceive the irreconcilable differences which 
separate the negro from the European in America. But we 
may derive some faint notion of them from analogy. France 
was formerly a country in which numerous distinctions of 
rank existed, that had been created by the legislation. No¬ 
thing can be more fictitious than a purely legal inferiority; 
nothing more contrary to the instinct of mankind than these 
permanent divisions which had been established between 
beings evidently similar. Nevertheless these divisions sub¬ 
sisted for ages ; they still subsist in many places; and on all 
sides they have left imaginary vestiges, which time alone can. 
efface. If it be so difficult to root out an inequality which 
solely originates in the law, how are those distinctions to be 
destroyed which seem to be founded upon the immutable laws of 
nature herself ? When I remember the extreme difficulty 
with which aristocratic bodies, of whatever nature they may¬ 
be, are commingled with the mass of the people ; and the ex¬ 
ceeding care which they take to preserve the ideal boundaries 
of their caste inviolate, I despair of seeing an aristocracy dis¬ 
appear which is founded upon visible and indelible signs. 
Those who hope that the Europeans will ever mix with the 
negroes, appear to me to delude themselves ; and I am not 
led to any such conclusion by my own reason, or by the evi¬ 
dence of facts. 

Hitherto, wherever the whites have been the most power¬ 
ful, they have maintained the blacks in a subordinate or a 
servile position; wherever the negroes have been strongest, 
they have destroyed the whites ; such has been the only 

* To induce the whites to abandon the opinion they have conceived 
of the moral and intellectual inferiority of their former'slaves, the ne¬ 
groes must change; but as long as this opinion subsists, to change is 
impossible. 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. . 363 

course of events which has ever taken place between the 
two races. 

I see that in a certain portion of the territory of the United 
States at the present day, the legal barrier which separated 
the two races is tending to fall away, but not that which ex¬ 
ists in the manners of the country; slavery recedes, but the 
prejudice to which it has given birth remains stationary. 
Whosoever has inhabited the United States, must have per¬ 
ceived, that in those parts of the Union in which the negroes 
are no longer slaves, they have in nowise drawn nearer to the 
whites. On the contrary, the prejudice of the race appears 
to be stronger in the states which have abolished slavery, 
than in those where it still exists ; and nowhere is it so intole¬ 
rant as in those states where servitude has never been 
known. 

It is true, that in the north of the Union, marriages may be 
legally contracted between negroes and whites, but public 
opinion would stigmatize a man who should connect himself 
with a negress as infamous, and it would be difficult to meet 
with a single instance of such a union. The electoral fran¬ 
chise has been conferred upon the negroes in almost all the 
states in which slavery has been abolished ; but if they come 
forward to vote, their lives are in danger. If oppressed, they 
may bring an action at law, but they will find none but whites 
among their judges ; and although they may legally serve as 
jurors, prejudice repulses them from that office. The same 
schools do not receive the child of the black and of the Euro- 
, pean. In the theatres, gold cannot procure a seat for the ser- 
vile race beside their former masters ; in the hospitals they 
lie apart; and although they are allowed to invoke the same 
Divinity as the whites, it must be at a different altar, and in 
their own churches, with their own clergy. The gates of 
heaven are not closed against these unhappy beings ; but their 
inferiority is continued to the very confines of the other world. 
When the negro is defunct, his bones are cast aside, and the 
distinction of condition prevails even in the equality of death. 
The negro is free, but he can share neither the rights, nor the 
pleasure, nor the labor, nor the afflictions, nor the tomb of 
him whose equal he has been declared to be ; and he cannot 
meet him upon fair terms in life or in death. 

In the south, where slavery still .exists, the negroes are less 
carefully kept apart; they sometimes share the labor and 
the recreations of the whites ; the whites consent to intermix 
with them to a certain extent, and although the legislation 
treats them more harshly, the habits of the people are more 


364 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


tolerant and compassionate. In the south the master is not 
afraid to raise his slave to his own standing, because he 
knows that he can in a moment reduce him to the dust at 
pleasure. In the north, the white no longer distinctly per¬ 
ceives the barrier which separates him from the degraded 
race, and he shuns the negro with the more pertinacity, 
because he fears lest they should be some day confounded 
together. 

Among the Americans of the south, nature sometimes re¬ 
asserts her rights, and restores a transient equality between 
the blacks and the whites; but in the north, pride restrains 
the most imperious of human passions. The American of 
the northern states would perhaps allow the negress to share 
his licentious pleasures, if the laws of his country did not 
declare that she may aspire to be the legitimate partner of his 
bed; but he recoils with horror from her who might become 
his wife. 

Thus it is, in the United States, that the prejudice which 
repels the negroes seems to increase in proportion as they are 
emancipated, and inequality is sanctioned by the manners 
while it is effaced from the laws of the country. But if the 
relative position of the two races which inhabit the United 
States, is such as I have described, it may be asked why the 
Americans have abolished slavery in the north of the Union, 
why they maintain it in the south, and why they aggravate its 
hardships there ? The answer is easily given. It is not for 
the good of the negroes, but for that of the whites, that mea¬ 
sures are taken to abolish slavery in the United States. 

The first negroes were imported into Virginia about the 
year 1621 .* In America, therefore, as well as in the rest of the 
globe, slavery originated in the south. Thence it spread 
from one settlement to another; but the number of slaves 
diminished toward the northern states, and the negro population 
was always very limited in New England.f 

* See Beverley’s History of Virginia. See also in Jefferson’s Memoirs 
some curious details concerning the introduction of negroes into 
Virginia, and the first act which prohibited the importation of them 
in 1778. 

t The number of slaves was less considerable in the north, but the 
advantages resulting from slavery were not more contested there than 
in the south. In 1740, the legislature of the state of New York 
declared that the direct impoVtation of slaves ought to be encouraged 
as much as possible, and smuggling severely punished, in order not to 
discourage the fair trader. (Kent’s Commentaries, vol. ii., p. 206.) 
Curious researches, by Belknap, upon slavery in New England, are to 
be found in the Historical Collections of Massachusetts, vol. iv., p. 193. 
It appears that negroes were introduced there in 1630, but that the 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 


365 


A century had scarcely elapsed since the foundation of the 
colonies, when the attention of the planters was struck by the 
extraordinary fact, that the provinces which were comparatively 
destitute of slaves, increased in population, in wealth, and in 
prosperity, more rapidly than those which contained the 
greatest number of negroes. In the former, however, the 
inhabitants were obliged to cultivate the soil themselves, or by 
hired laborers; in the latter, they were furnished with hands 
for which they paid no wages ; yet, although labor and 
expense were on the one side, and ease with economy on the 
other, the former w'ere in possession of the most advantageous 
system. This consequence seemed to be the more difficult 
to explain, since the settlers, who all belonged to the same 
European race, had the same habits, the same civilisation, 
the same laws, and their shades of difference were extremely 
slight. 

Time, however, continued to advance; and the Anglo- 
Americans, spreading beyond the coasts of the Atlantic ocean, 
penetrated farther and farther into the solitudes of the west; 
they met with a new soil and an unwonted climate; the 
obstacles which opposed them were of the most various 
character; their races intermingled, the inhabitants of the 
south went up toward the north, those of the north descended 
to the south; but in the midst of all these causes, the same 
result recurred at every step ; and in general, the colonies in 
which there were no slaves became more populous and more 
rich than those in which slavery flourished. The more pro¬ 
gress was made, the more was it shown that slavery, which 
is so cruel to the slave, is prejudicial to the master. 

But this truth was most satisfactorily demonstrated when 
civilisation reached the banks of the Ohio. The stream 
which the Indians had distinguished by the name of Ohio, or 
Beautiful river, waters one of the most magnificent valleys 
which have ever been made the abode of man. Undulating 
lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords 
inexhaustible treasures to the laborer ; on either bank the air 
is wholesome and the climate mild ; and each of them forms 
the extreme frontier of a vast state : that which follows the 
numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called 
Kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. 
These two states only differ in a single respect; Kentucky 

legislation and manners of the people were opposed to slavery from the 
first; see also, in the same work, the manner in which public opinion, 
and afterward the laws, finally put an end to slavery., 

32* 


366 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


has admitted slavery,, but the state of Ohio has prohibited the 
existence of slaves within its borders.* 

Thus the traveller who floats down the current of the Ohio, 
to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi, may be 
said to sail between liberty and servitude ; and a transient 
inspection of the surrounding objects will convince him which 
of the two is most favorable to mankind. 

Upon the left bank of the stream the population is rare ; 
from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the 
half-desert fields; the primeval forest recurs at every turn ; 
society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone 
offers a scene of activity and of life. 

From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is 
heard, which proclaims the presence of industry ; the fields 
are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the 
dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborer; and 
man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and con¬ 
tentment which are the reward of labor.f 

The state of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the state of 
Ohio only twelve years later; but twelve years are more 
in America than half a century in Europe, and, at the present 
day, the population of Ohio exceeds that of Kentucky by 250,- 
000 souls.^ These opposite consequences of slavery and 
freedom may readily be understood; and they suffice to 
explain many of the differences which we remark between 
the civilisation of antiquity and that of our own time. 

Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the 
idea of slavery, upon the right bank it is identified with that 
of prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is 
degraded, on the other it is honored ; on the former territory 
no white laborers can be found, for they would be afraid of 
assimilating themselves to the negroes ; on the latter no one 
is idle, for the white population extends its activity and its 
intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men 

* Not only is slavery prohibited in Ohio, but no free negroes are 
allowed to enter the territory of that state, or to hold property in it 
See the statutes of Ohio. , 

f The activity of Ohio is not confined to individuals, but the under¬ 
takings of the state are surprisingly great: a canal has been established 
between Lake Erie and the Ohio, by means of which the valley of the 
Mississippi communicates with the river of the north, and the Euro¬ 
pean commodities with arrive at New York, may be forwarded by water 
to New Orleans across five hundred leagues of continent. 

J The exact numbers given by the census of 1830 were: Kentucky, 
688,844; Ohio, 937,679. 

[In 1840 the census gave, Kentucky 779,828 ; Ohio 1,519,467.] 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 


367 


whose task it is to cuitivate the rich soil of Kentucky are 
ignorant and lukewarm ; while those who are active and 
enlightened either do nothing, or pass over into the state of 
Ohio, where they may work without dishonor. 

It is true that in Kentucky the planters are not obliged to 
pay wages to the slaves whom they employ ; but they derive 
small profits from their labor, while the wages paid to free 
workmen would be returned with interest in the value of their 
services. The free workman is paid, but he does his work 
quicker than the slave; and rapidity of execution is one of 
the great elements of economy. The white sells his services, 
but they are only purchased at the times at which they may 
be useful ; the black can claim no remuneration for his toil, 
but the expense of his maintenance is perpetual; he must 
be supported in his old age as ^vell as in the prime of man¬ 
hood, in his profitless infancy as well as in the productive 
5’^ears of youth. Payment must equally be made in order to 
obtain the services of either class of men ; the free workman 
receives his wages in money ; the slave in education, in 
food, in care, and in clothing. The money which a master 
spends in the maintenance of his slaves, goes gradually and 
in detail, so that it is scarcely perceived; the salary of the 
free workman is paid in a round sum, which appears only to 
enrich the individual who receives it; but in the end the 
slave has cost more than the free servant, and his labor is less 
productive.* 

The influence of slavery extends still farther ; it affects 
the character of the master, and imparts a peculiar tendency 
to his ideas and his tastes. Upon both banks of the Ohio, the 
character of the inhabitants is enterprising and energetic ; 
but this vigor is very differently exercised in the two states. 

* Independently of these causes which, wherever free workmen 
abound, render their labor more productive and more economical than 
that of slaves, another cause may be pointed out which is peculiar to 
the United States : the sugar-cane has hitherto been cultivated with 
success only upon the banks of the Mississippi, near the mouth of that 
river in the gulf of Mexico. In Lrouisiana the cultivation of the sugar¬ 
cane is exceedingly lucrative ; nowhere does a laborer earn so much by 
his work : and, as there is always a certain relation between the cost 
of production and the value of the produce, the price of slaves is very 
high in Louisiana. But Louisiana is one of the confederate states, and 
slaves may be carried thither from all parts of the Union; the price 
given for slaves in New Orleans consequently raises the value of slaves 
in all the other markets. The consequence of this is, that in the 
countries where the land is less productive, the cost of slave labor is 
still very considerable, which gives an additional advantage to the com¬ 
petition of free labor. 



368 


PRESENT AND FDTFKE CONDITION OF 


The white inhabitant of Ohio, who is obliged to subsist by his 
own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as the principal 
aim of his existence ; and as the country which he occupies 
presents inexhaustible resources to his industry, and ever- 
varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses 
the ordinary limits of human cupidity : he is tormented by 
the desire of wealth, and he boldly enters upon every path 
which fortune opens to him ; he becomes a sailor, pioneer, 
an artisan, or a laborer, with the same indifference, and he 
supports, with equal constancy, the fatigues and,the dangers 
incidental to these various professions ; the resources of his 
intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of 
gain amounts to a species of heroism. 

But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor, but all the un¬ 
dertakings which labor promotes; as he lives in an idle 
independence, his tastes are those of an idle man ; money 
loses a portion of its value in his eyes; he covets wealth 
much less than pleasure and excitement; and the energy 
which his neighbor devotes to gain, turns with him to a passion¬ 
ate love of field sports and military exercises ; he delights in 
violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, 
and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life, 
in single combat. Thus slavery not only prevents the whites 
from becoming opulent, but even from desiring to become so. 

As the same causes have been continually producing ©p- 
posite effects for the last two centuries in the British colonies 
of North America, they have established a very striking dif. 
ference between the commercial capacity of the inhabitants 
of the south and that of the north. At the present day, it is 
only the northern states which are in possession of shipping, 
manufactures, railroads, and canals. This difference is per¬ 
ceptible not only in comparing the north with the south, but 
in comparing the several southern states. Almost all the 
individuals who carry on commercial operations, or who en¬ 
deavor to turn slave-labor to account in the most southern 
districts of the Union, have emigrated from the north. The 
natives of the northern states are constantly spreading over 
that portion of the American territory, where they have less 
to fear from competition ; they discover resources there, 
which escaped the notice of the inhabitants ; and, as they 
comply with a system which they do not approve, they suc¬ 
ceed in turning it to better advantage than those who first 
founded, and who still maintain it. 

Were I inclined to continue this parallel, 1 could easily 
prove that almost all the differences, which may be remarked 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 


369 


between the characters of the Americans in the southern and 
in the northern states, have originated in slavery ; but this 
Would divert me from my subject, and my present intention 
is not to point out all the consequences of servitude, but 
those effects which it has produced upon the prosperity of 
the countries which have admitted it. 

The influence of slavery upon the production of wealth 
niUvSt have been very imperfectly known in antiquity, as sla¬ 
very then obtained throughout the civilized world, and the 
nations which were unacquainted with it were barbarous. 
And indeed Christianity only abolished slavery by advocating 
the claims of the slave ; at the present time it may be at¬ 
tacked in the name of the master; and, upon this point, inte¬ 
rest is reconciled with morality. 

As these truths became apparent in the United States, sla¬ 
very receded before the progress of experience. Servitude 
had begun in the south, and had thence spread toward the 
north ; but it now retires again. Freedom, which started 
from the north, now descends uninterruptedly toward the 
south. Among the great states, Pennsylvania now consti¬ 
tutes the extreme limit of slavery to the north ; but even 
within those limits the slave-system is shaken; Maryland, 
which is immediately below Pennsylvania, is preparing for 
its abolition ; and Virginia, which comes next to Maryland, 
is already discussing its utility and its dangers.* 

No great change takes place in human institutions, with¬ 
out involving among its causes the law of inheritance. When 
the law of primogeniture obtained in the south, each family 
was represented by a wealthy individual, who was neither 
compelled nor induced to labor; and he was surrounded, as 
by parasitic plants, by the other members of his family, who 
were then excluded by law from sharing the common inhe¬ 
ritance, and who led the same kind of life as himself. The 
very same thing then occurred in all the families of the 
south that still happens in the wealthy familie^f some coun¬ 
tries in Europe, namely, that the younger sons remain in the 

* A peculiar reason contributes to detach the two last-mentioned 
states from the cause of slavery. The former wealth of this part of the 
Union was principally derived from the cultivation of tobacco. This 
cultivation is specially carried on by slaves; but within the last few 
years the market-price of tobacco has diminished, while the value of 
the slaves remains the same. Thus the ratio between the cost of pro¬ 
duction and the value of the produce is changed. The natives of 
Maryland and Virginia are therefore more disposed than they were 
thirty years ago, to give up slave labor in the cultivation of tobacco, 
or to give up slavery and tobacco at the same time. 


370 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


same state of idleness as their elder brother, without being 
as rich as he is. This identical result seems to be produced 
in Europe and in America by wholly analogous causes. In 
the south of the United States, the whole race of whites 
formed an aristocratic body, which was headed by a certain 
number of privileged individuals, whose wealth was perma¬ 
nent, and whose leisure was hereditary. These leaders of 
the American nobility kept alive the traditional prejudices of 
the white race in the body of which they were the representa¬ 
tives, and maintained the honor of inactive life. This aris¬ 
tocracy contained many who were poor, but none who would 
work ; its members preferred want to labor; consequently 
no competition was set on foot against negro laborers and 
slaves, and whatever opinion might be entertained as to the 
utility of their efforts, it was indispensable to employ them, 
since there was no one else to work. 

No sooner was the law of primogeniture abolished than for¬ 
tunes began to diminish, and all the families of the country 
were simultaneously reduced to a state in which labor be¬ 
came necessary to procure the means of subsistence : seve¬ 
ral of them have since entirely disappeared ; and all of them 
learned to look forward to the time at which it would be 
necessary for every one to provide for his own wants. 
Wealthy individuals are still to be met with, but they no 
longer constitute a compact and hereditary body, nor have 
they been able to adopt a line of conduct in which they could 
persevere, and which they could infuse into all ranks of soci¬ 
ety. The prejudice which stigmatized labor was in the first 
place abandoned by common consent; the number of needy 
men was increased, and the needy were allowed to gain a 
laborious subsistence without blushing for their exertions. 
Thus one of the most immediate consequences of the partible 
quality of estates has been to create a class of free laborers. 
As soon as a competition was set on foot between the free 
laborer and the slave, the inferiority of the latter became 
manifest, and slavery was attacked in its fundamental prin¬ 
ciples, which is, tiie interest of the master. , 

As slavery recedes, the black population follows its retro¬ 
grade course, and returns with it to those tropical regions 
from which it originally came. However singular this fact 
may at first appear to be, it may readily be explained. Al¬ 
though the Americans abolish the principle of slavery, they 
do not set their slaves free. 'To illustrate this remark I will 
quote the example of the state of New York. In 1788, the 
state of New York j)rohibited'the sale of slaves within its 


THK THREE RACES INHABITING THE Hv S. 


371 


limits ; which was an indirect method of prohibiting the im. 
portation of blacks. Thenceforward the number of negroes 
could only increase according to the ratio of the natural in¬ 
crease of population. But eight years later a more decisive 
measure was taken, and it was enacted that all children born 
of slave parents after the 4th of July, 1799, should be free. 
No increase could then take place, and although slaves still 
existed, slavery might be said to be abolished. 

From the time at which a northern state prohibited the 
importation of slaves, no slaves were brought from the south 
to be sold in its markets. On the other hand, as the sale of 
slaves wa-s forbidden in that state, an owner was no longer 
able to get rid of his slaves (who thus became a burdensome 
possession) otherwise than by transporting him to the south. 
But when a northern state declared that the son of the slave 
should be born free, the slave lost a large portion of his mar¬ 
ket value, since his posterity was no longer included in the 
bargain, and the owner had then a strong interest in trans¬ 
porting him to the south. Thus the same law prevents the 
slaves of the south from coming to the northern states, and 
drives those of the north to the south. 

The want of free hands is felt in a state in proportion as 
the number of slaves decreases. But in proportion as labor 
is performed by free hands, slave-labor becomes less produc¬ 
tive ; and the slave is then a useless or an onerous posses¬ 
sion, whom it is important to export to those southern states 
where the same competition is not to be feared. Thus the 
abolition of slavery does not set the slave free, but it merely 
transfers him from one master to another, and from the north 
to the south. 

The emancipated negroes, and those born after the aboli¬ 
tion of slavery, do not, indeed, migrate from the north to the 
south; but tlieir situation with regard to the Europeans is 
not unlike that of the aborigines of America ; they remain 
half civilized, and deprived of their rights in the midst of a 
population which is far superior to them in w'ealth and in 
knowledge ; where they are exposed to the tyranny of the 
laws,* and the intolerance of the people. On some accounts 
they arc still more to be pitied than the Indians, since they 
are haunted by the reminiscence of slavery, and they cannot 

* The states in which slavery is abolished usually do what they can 
to render their territory disa;<reeable to the negroes as a place of resi¬ 
dence ; and as a kind of emulation exists between the different states 
in this respect, the unhappy blacks can only choose the least of the 
evils which beset thejm. 




S72 


PRESENT ANO HITURE CONWTIO'N Of 


claim possession of a single portion of the soil i many of thefW 
perish miserably,* and the rest congregate in the great towns, 
where they perform the meanest offices, and lea,d a wretched 
and precarious existence<r 

But even if the number of Jtegfoes oonfinued to increase 
as rapidly as when they were still in a state of slavery, as 
ithe number of whites augments with twofold rapidity since 
Ithe abolition of slavery, the blacks would soo?j be, as it Werey 
lost in the midst of a strange population. 

A district which is cultivated by slaves is in general more 
scantily peopled than a district cultivated by free labor; 
moreover, America is still a new country, and a state is 
therefore not half peopled at the time when it abolished slave¬ 
ry. No sooner is an end put to slavery, than the want of 
free labor is felt, and a crowd of enterprising adventurers 
immediately arrive from all parts of the country, who hasten 
to profit by the fresh resources which are then opened to 
industry. Tfie soil is soon divided among them, and a 
family of white settlers takes possession of each tract of coun¬ 
try. Besides which, European emigration is exclusively 
directed to the free states; for what would be the fate of a 
poor emigrant who crosses fhe Atlantic m search of ease and 
happiness, if he were to land in a country where labor is 
stigmatized as degrading ? 

Thus fhe white popmafion grows by its natural increascy 
and at the same time by the immense influx of emigrants j 
while the black population receives no emigrants, and is upon 
its decline. The proportion which existed between the two 
races is soon inverted^ The negroes constitute a scanty rem¬ 
nant, a poor tribe of vagrants, which fs lost in the midst of an 
immense people fn full possession of the land; and the pre¬ 
sence of fhe blacks is only marked by the injuslice and tho 
hardships of which they are the unhappy viefimsy 

In several of the western states fhe negro race never made? 
its appearance ; and rn all the northern stales it is rapidly de¬ 
clining. Thus fhe great question of its future condition is 
confined within a narrow circle, where it becomes less formi¬ 
dable, though not more easy of solution ^ 

* There iVa very gretif difference between the mortafity of the’ blacks 
and of the whites in fhe states in which s-lav'ery is afolis-hed; from 
1820 to I83t only one otft of forty-two individuals of the white popu¬ 
lation died in Philadelphia ^ but one negro out of twenty-orie indi- 
vidnais of the black popuktion died’ in the same space of time. The 
mortal'ity is by nn means so CTeat among the negroes who are stiH 
slavesv 4See Emmerson’s Medical Statistics^ p. 28,) 


ftlCSS INUlBiTlNGf V. 

The mofe we descend toward the south, the more difficult 
does It become to abolish slavery with advantage ; and this 
arises from several physical causes, which it is important to 
point out* 

The first of these causes is the climate i it is well known 
that in proportion as Europeans approach the tropics, they 
suffer more from labor* Many of the Americans even assert, 
that within a certain latitude the exertions which a negro can 
tnake without danger are fatal to them f but I do not think 
that this opinion, which is so favorable to the indolence of the 
inhabitants of southern regions, is confirmed by experience* 
The southern parts of the tfnion are not hotter than the south 
of Italy and of Spain and it may be asked why the Euro¬ 
pean cannot work as well there as in the two latter countries* 
If slavery has been abolished in Italy and in Spain without 
causing the destruction of the masters, Why should not the 
same thing take place in the Union ? I cannot believe that 
Nature has prohibited the Europeans in Georgia and the Flo- 
ridas, under pain of death, from raising the means of sub¬ 
sistence from the soil; but their labor would Unquestionably 
be more irksome and less productive^ to them than the inha¬ 
bitants of New England* As the free workman thus loses 
a portion of his superiority over the slave in the southeru 
states, there are fewer inducements to abolish slavery* 

All the plants of Europe grow in the northern parts of the 
Union ; the south has special productions of its own* It has 
been observed that slave labor is a very expensive method of 
cultivating corn* The farmer of corn-land in a country 
where slavery is unknown, habitually retains a small number 
of laborers in his service, and at seed-time and harvest he 
hires several additional hands, who only live at his cost for a 
short period. But the agriculturist in a slave state is obliged 
to keep a large number of slaves the whole year round, iu 

* This is true of the spots in Which rice is cuftivated ; rice-groundS, 
Which are Unwholesome in all countries, aredangerous rh" 
those regions Which ai'e eViposed to the beams of a tropical sun. Eu¬ 
ropeans would not find it easy to cultitate the Soil in that part df the 
New World if it must necessarily he made to pfodude ride; but may 
they not subsist without rice-grounds ? 

t These States are' nearer to the equator than Italy and Spain, but the 
temperature of the continent of Amerida iS very luudh lovrer than that 
of Europe. 

I The Spanish government formerly daused a eertain number of pea-* 
sants from the Azores to be transported into a distriet of Louisiana 
called Attakapas, by Way Of experiment. These Settlers still cultivate- 
the soil without the assistande of slaves, but their industry is so lan¬ 
guid as seardely to supply their most necessary wants 
83 


374 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


order to sow his fields and to gather in his crops, although 
their services are only required for a few weeks; but slaves 
are unable to wait till they are hired, and to subsist by their 
own labor in the meantime like free laborers ; in order to 
have their services, they must be bought. Slavery, indepen¬ 
dently of its general disadvantages, is therefore still more 
inapplicable to countries in which corn is cultivated than to. 
those which produce crops of a different kind. 

The cultivation of tobacco, of cotton, and especially of the 
sugar-cane, demands, on the other hand, unremitting atten¬ 
tion : and women and children are employed in it, whose ser¬ 
vices are of but little use in the cultivation of wheat. Thus 
slavery is naturally more fitted to the countries from which 
these productions are derived. 

Tobacco, cotton, and the sugar-cane, are exclusively grown 
in the south, and they form one of the principal sources of the 
wealth of those states. If slavery were abolished, the inha¬ 
bitants of the south would be constrained to adopt one of two 
alternatives : they must either change their system of culti¬ 
vation, and then they would come into competition with the 
more active and more experienced inhabitants of the north 
or, if they continued to cultivate the same produce without - 
slave labor, they would have to support the competition of the 
other states of the south, which might still retain their slaves'. 
Thus, peculiar reasons for maintaining slavery exist in the 
south which do not operate in the north. 

But there is yet another motive which is more cogent than 
all the others; the south might indeed, rigorously speaking, 
abolish slavery, but how should it rid its territory of the black 
population ? Slaves and slavery are driven from the north 
by the same law, but this twofold result cannot l)e hoped for 
in the south. 

The arguments which 1 have adduced to show that slavery 
is more natural and more advantageous in the south than in 
the north, sufficiently prove that the number of slaves must 
be far greater in the former districts. It was to the southern 
settlements that the first Africans were brought, and it is there 
thut the greatest number of them have always been imported. 
As we advance toward the south, the prejudice which sanc¬ 
tions idleness increases in po\yer. In the states nearest to the 
tropics there is not a single white laborer; the negroes are 
consequently much more numerous in the south than in the 
north. And, as I have already observed, this disproportion 
increases daily, since the negroes are transferred to one part 
of the Union as soon as slavery is abolished in the other. 



THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 375 

Thus the black population augments in the south, not only by 
its natural fecundity, but by the compulsory emigration of 
the negroes from the north ; and the African race has causes 
of increase in the south very analogous to those which so pow¬ 
erfully accelerate the growth of the European race in the 
north. 

In the state of Maine there is one negro in three hundred 
inhabitants 5 in Massachusetts, one in one hundred; in New 
York, two in one hundred ; in Pennsylvania, three in the same 
number; in Maryland, thirty-four ; in Virginia, forty-two; 
and lastly, in South Carolina, fifty-five per cent.* Such was 
the proportion of the black population to the whites in the year 
1830. But this proportion is perpetually changing, as it con¬ 
stantly decreases in the north and augments in the south. 

It is evident that the most southern states of the Union can¬ 
not abolish slavery without incurring, very great dangers, 
which the north had no reason to apprehend when it emanci¬ 
pated its black population. We have already shown the sys¬ 
tem by which the northern states secure the transition from 
slavery to freedom, by keeping the present generation in 
chains, and setting their descendants free ; by this means the 
negroes are gradually introduced into society ; and while the 
men who might abuse their freedom are kept in a state of 
servitude, those who are emancipated may learn the art of 
being free before they become their own masters. But it 
would be difficult to apply this method in the south. To de¬ 
clare that all the negroes born after a certain period shall be 
free, is to introduce the principle and the notion of liberty into 
the heart of slavery ; the blacks, whom the law thus main¬ 
tains in a state of slavery from which their children are de¬ 
livered, are astonished at so unequal a fate, and their aston- 

* We find it asserted in an American work, entitled, “ Letters on 
the Colonization Society,” by Mr. Carey, 1833, that “ for the last 
forty years the black race has increased more rapidly than the white 
race in the state of South Carolina; and that if we take the average 
population of the five states of the south into which slaves were first 
introduced, viz., Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, 
and Georgia, we shall find that from 1790 to 1830, the whites have 
augmented in the proportion of 80 to 100, and the blacks in that ol 
112 to 100.” 

In the United States, 1830, the population of the two races stood as 
follows :— 

States where slavery is abolished, 6,565,434 whites ; 120,520 blacks. 
Slave states, 3,960,814 whites; 2,208,112 blacks. 

[By the census of 1840, the population of the two races was as fol¬ 
lows : States where slavery is abolished, 9,556,065 whites; 171,854 
blacks. Slave states, 4,633,153 whites ; 2,581,688 blacks ] 




PRfiSfiNT AND FUTtJllfi CONDITION Of 


ishment is only the prelude to their impatience and irritation* 
Thenceforward slavery loses in their eyes that kind of moral 
power which it derived from time and habit; it is reduced to 
a mere palpable abuse of force. The northern states had 
nothing to fear from the contrast, because in them the blacks 
were few in number, and the white population was very con* 
siderable. But if this faint dawn of freedom Were to show 
two m.illions of men their true position, the oppressors would 
have reason to tremble. After having enfranchised the chil¬ 
dren of their slaves, the Europeans of the southern states 
Would very shortly be obliged to extend the same benefit to the 
whole black population. 

In the north, as I have already remarked, a two-fold 
migration ensues upon the abolition of slavery, or even pre¬ 
cedes that event when circumstances have rendered it proba¬ 
ble ; the slaves quit the country to be transported southward; 
and the whites of the northern states as well as the emigrants 
from Europe hasten to fill up their place. But these two 
causes cannot operate in the same manner in the southern 
states. On the one hand, the mass of slaves is too great for 
any expectation of their ever being removed from the country 
to be entertained; and on the other hand, the Europeans and 
the Anglo-Americans of the north are afraid to come to 
inhabit a country, in which labor has not yet been reinstated 
in its rightful honors. Besides, they Very justly look upon 
the states in which the proportion of the negroes equals or 
exceeds that of the whites, as exposed to very great dangers; 
and they refrain from turning their activity in that direction. 

Thus the inhabitants ■>f the south would not be able, like 
their northern country^.ien, to initiate the slaves gradually 
into a stale of freedom, by abolishing slavery ; they have no 
means of perceptibly diminishing the black population, and 
they would remain unsupported to repress its excesses. So 
that in the course of a few years, a great people of free ne¬ 
groes would exist in the heart of a white nation of equal size. 

The same abuses of power which still maintain slavery. 
Would then become the source of the most alarming perils, 
which the white population of the south might have to appre¬ 
hend. At the present time the descendants of the Europeans' 
are the sole owners of the land ; the absolute masters of al] 
labor; and the only persons who are possessed of wealth, 
knowledge, and arms. The black is destitute of all these ad¬ 
vantages, but he subsists without them because he is a slave. 
If he Were free, and obliged to provide for his own subsistence, 
Would it be possible for him to remain without these things 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 377 

and to support life ? Or would not the very instruments of 
the present superiority of the white, while slavery exists, ex¬ 
pose him to a thousand dangers if it were abolished ? 

As long as the negro remains a slave, he may be kept in a 
condition not very far removed from that of the brutes; but, 
with his liberty, he cannot but acquire a degree of instruc¬ 
tion which will enable him to appreciate his misfortunes, and 
to discern a remedy for them. Moreover, there exists a sin¬ 
gular principle of relative justice which is very firmly im¬ 
planted in the human heart. Men are much more forcibly 
struck by those inequalities which exist within the circles of 
the same class, than with those which may be remarked be¬ 
tween different classes. It is more easy for them to admit 
slavery,' than to allow several millions of citizens to exist 
under a load of eternal infamy and hereditary wretchedness. 
In the north, the population of freed negroes feels these hard¬ 
ships and resents these indignities; but its members and its 
powers are small, while in the south it would be numerous 
and strong. i 

As soon as it is admitted that the whites and the emanci¬ 
pated blacks are placed upon the same territory in the situa¬ 
tion of two alien communities, it will readily be understood 
that there are but two alternatives for the future ; the negroes 
and the whites must either wholly part or wholly mingle. I 
have already expressed the conviction which I entertain as to 
the latter event.* (l do not imagine that the white and the 
black races will ever live in any cq^untry upon an equal 
footing.J But I believe the difficulty to be still greater in the 
United States than elsewhere. An isolated individual may 
surmount the prejudices of religion, of his country, or of his 
race, and if this individual is a king he may effect surprising 
changes in society; but a whole people cannot rise, as it were, 
above itself. A despot who should subject the Americans and 
their former slaves to the same yoke, might perhaps succeed 
in commingling their races; but as long as the American 
democracy remains at the head of affairs, no one will under¬ 
take so difficult a task; and it may be foreseen that the freer 

* This opinion is sanctioned by authorities infinitely weightier than 
anything that I can say; thus, for instance, it is stated in the Memoirs 
of Jefferson (as collected by M. Conseil), “ Nothing is more clearly 
written in the book of destiny than the emancipation of the blacks; and 
it is equally certain that the two races will never live in a state of equal 
freedom under the same government, so insurmountable are the barriers 
which nature, habit, and opinions, have established between them.” 
33* 


378 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


the white population of the United States becomes, the more 
isolated will it remain.* 

I have previously observed that the mixed race is the true 
bond of union between the Europeans and the Indians ; just 
so the mulattoes are the true means of transition between the 
white and the negro ; so that wherever mulattoes abound, the ' 
kitermixture of the two races is not impossible. In some 
parts of America the European and the negro races are so 
crossed by one another, that it is. rare to meet with a man 
who is entirely black or entirely white: when they are ar¬ 
rived at this point, the two races may really be said to be 
combined; or rather to have been absorbed in a third race, 
which is connected with both, without being identical with 
either. 

Of all the Europeans the English are those who have . 
mixed least with the negroes. More mulattoes are to be seen 
in the south of the Union than in the north, but still they are 
infinitely more scarce than in any other European colony 
Mulattoes are by no means numerous in the United States ; 
they have no force peculiar to themselves, and when quarrels 
originating in differences of color take place, they generally 
side with the whites, just as the lacqueys of the great in 
Europe assume the contemptuous airs of nobility to the lower 
orders. 

The pride of origin, which is natural to the English, is 
singularly augmented by the personal pride which democratic 
liberty fosters among the Americans : the white citizen of the 
United States is proud of his race, and proud of himself. But 
if the whites and the negroes do not intermingle in the north 
of the Union, how should they mix in the south ? Can it be 
supposed for an instant, that an American of the southern 
states, placed, as he must for ever be, between the white man 
with all his physical and moral superiority, and the riegro, 
will ever think of preferring the latter ? The Americans of 
the southern states have two powerful passions, which will 
always keep them aloof; the first is the fear of being assimi¬ 
lated to the negroes, their former slaves ; and the second, the 
dread of sinking below the whites, their neighbors. 

If I were called upon to predict what will probably occur 
at some future time, I should say, that the abolition of slavery 
in the south, will, in the common course of things, increase 
the repugnance of the white population for the men of color. 

* If the British West India planters had governed themselves, they > 
would assuredly not have p'assed the slave emancipation bill which 
the mother country has recently imposed upon them. 




THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 379 

I found this opinion upon the analogous observation which I 
already had occasion to make in the north. I there remarked, 
that the white inhabitants of the north avoid the negroes with 
increasing care, in proportion as the legal barriers of separa¬ 
tion are removed by the legislature ; and why should not the 
same result take place in the south ? In the north, the whites 
are deterred from intermingling with the blacks by the fear 
of an imaginary danger ; in the south, where the danger 
would be real, I cannot imagine that the fear would be less 
general. 

If, on the one hand, it be admitted (and the fact is unques¬ 
tionable), that the colored population perpetually accumulates 
in the extreme south, and that it increases more rapidly than 
that of the whites ; and if, on the other hand, it be allowed that 
it is impossible to foresee a time at which the whites and the 
blacks will be so intermingled as to derive the same benefits 
from society ; must it not be inferred, that the blacks and the 
whites will, sooner or later, come to open strife in the south¬ 
ern states of the Union ? But if it be asked what the 
issue of the struggle is likely to be, it will readily be under¬ 
stood, that we are here left to form a very vague surmise of 
the truth. The human mind may succeed in tracing a wide 
circle, as it were, which includes the course of future events; 
but within that circle a thousand various chances and cir¬ 
cumstances may direct it in as many different ways; and in 
every picture of the future there is a dim spot, which the eye 
of the understanding cannot penetrate. It appears, however, 
to be extremely probable, that in the West India islands the 
white race is destined to be subdued, and the black population 
to share the same fate upon the continent. 

In the West India islands the white planters are surrounded 
by an immense black population ; on the continent, the blacks 
are placed between the ocean and an innumerable people, 
which already extends over them in a dense mass from the 
icy confines of Canada to the frontiers of Virginia, and from 
the banks of the Missouri to the shores of the Atlantic. If 
the white citizens of North America remain united, it cannot 
be supposed that the negroes will escape the destruction with 
which they are menaced; they must be subdued by want or 
by the sword. But the black population which is accumu¬ 
lating along the coast of the gulf of Mexico, has a chance of 
success, if the American Union is dissolved when the struggle 
between the two races begins, tf the federal tie were broken, 
the citizens of the south would be wrong to rely upon any 
lasting succor from their northern countrymen. The latter 



380 PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 

are well aware that the danger can never reach them; and 
unless they are constrained to march to the assistance of the 
south by a positive obligation, it may be foreseen that the 
sympathy of color will be insufficient to stimulate their 
exertions. 

Yet, at whatever period the strife may break out, the whites 
of the south, even if they are abandoned to their own resour¬ 
ces, will enter the lists with an immense superiority of know¬ 
ledge and of the means of warfare : but the blacks will have 
numerical strength and the energy of despair upon their side ; 
and these are powerful resources to men who have taken up 
arms. The fate of the white population of the southern 
states wdll, perhaps, be similar to that of the Moors in Spain. 
After having occupied the land for centuries, it will perhaps 
be forced to.retire to the country whence its ancestors came, 
and to abandon to the negroes the possession of a territory, 
which Providence seems to have more peculiarly destined for 
them, since they can subsist and labor in it more easily than 
the whites. 

The danger of a conflict between the white and the black 
inhabitants of the southern states of the Union—a danger 
which, however remote it may be, is inevitable—perpetually 
haunts the imagination of the Americans. The inhabitants 
of the north make it a common topic of conversation, although 
they have no direct injury to fear from the struggle ; but they 
vainly endeavor to devise some means of obviating the mis¬ 
fortunes which they foresee. In the southern states the sub¬ 
ject is not discussed : the planter does not allude to the future 
in conversing with strangers; the citizen does not communi¬ 
cate his apprehensions to his friends : he seeks to conceal 
them from himself: but there is something more alarming in 
the tacit forebodings of the south, than in the clamorous fears 
of the northern states. 

This all-pervading disquietude has given birth to an under¬ 
taking which is but little known, but which may have the 
effect of changing the fate of a portion of the human race. 
From apprehension of the dangers which I have just been de¬ 
scribing, a certain number of American citizens have formed 
a society for the purpose of exporting to the coast of Guinea, 
at their own expense, such free negroes as may be willing to 
escape from the oppression to which they are subject.* 

* This society assumed the name “ The Society for the Coloniza¬ 
tion of the Blacks.” See its annual reports ; and more particularly 
the fifteenth. See also the pamphlet, to which allusion has already 
been made, entitled “ Letters on the Colonization Society, and on its 
probable results,” by Mr. Carey, Philadelphia, April, 1833. 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 381 

In 1820, the society to which I allude formed a settlement 
in Africa, upon the 7th degree of north latitude, which bears 
the name of Liberia. The most recent intelligence informs 
us that two thousand five hundred negroes are collected there ; 
they have introduced the democratic institutions of America 
into the country of their forefathers ; and Liberia has a rep¬ 
resentative system of government, negro-jurymen, negro- 
magistrates, and negro-priests; churches have been built, 
newspapers established, and, by a singular change in the vicis¬ 
situdes of the world, white men are prohibited from sojourn¬ 
ing within the settlement.* 

This is indeed a strange caprice of fortune. Two hundred 
years have now elapsed since the inhabitants of Europe un¬ 
dertook to tear the negro from his family and his home, in 
order to transport him to the shores of North America ; at 
the present day, the European settlers are engaged in sending 
back the descendants of those very negroes to the continent 
from which they were originally taken; and the barbarous 
Africans have been brought into contact with civilisation in 
the midst of bondage, and have become acquainted with free 
political institutions in slavery. Up to the present time Africa 
has been closed against the arts and sciences of the whites ; 
but the inventions of Europe will perhaps penetrate into those 
regions, now that they are introduced by Africans themselves. 
The settlement of Liberia is founded upon a lofty and a most 
fruitful idea ; but whatever may be its results with regard to 
the continent of Africa, it can afford no remedy to the New 
World. 

In twelve years the Colonization society has transported 
two thousand five hundred negroes to Africa ; in the same 
space of time about seven hundred thousand blacks were born 
in the United States. If the colony of Liberia were so situ¬ 
ated as to be able to receive thousands of new inhabitants 
every year, and if the negroes were in a state to be sent 
thither with advantage ; if the Union were to supply the soci¬ 
ety with annual subsidies,f and to transport the negroes to 

* This last regulation was laid down by the founders of the settle¬ 
ment ; they apprehended that a state of things might arise in Africa, 
similar to that which exists on the frontiers of the United States, and 
that if the negroes, like the Indians, were brought into collision with 
a people more enlightened than themselves, they would be destroyed 
before they could be civilized. 

t Nor would these be the only difficulties attendant upon the under¬ 
taking ; if the Union undertook to buy up the negroes now in Ame¬ 
rica, in order to transport them to Africa, the price of slaves, increas¬ 
ing with their scarcity, would soon becorr.e enormous; and the states 



382 PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 

Africa in vessels of the state, it would be still unable to 
counterpoise the natural increase of population among the 
blacks; and as it would not remove as many men in a year 
as are born upon its territory within the same space of time, 
it would fail in suspending the growth of the evil which is 
daily increasing in ,the states.* The negro race will never 
leave those shores of the American continent, to which it 
was brought by the passions and the vices of Europeans ; and 
it will not disappear from the New World as long as it con¬ 
tinues to exist. The inhabitants of the United States may 
retard the calamities which they apprehend, but they cannot 
now destroy their efficient cause. 

I am obliged to confess that I do not regard the abolition of 
slavery as a means of w'arding off the struggle of the two 
races in the United States. The negroes may long remain 
slaves without complaining ; but if they are once raised to 
the level of freemen, they will soon revolt at being deprived 
of all their civil rights ; and as they cannot become the equals 
of the whites, they will speedily declare themselves as ene¬ 
mies. In the north everything contributed to facilitate the 
emancipation of the slaves ; and slavery was abolished, with¬ 
out placing the free negroes in a position which could become 
formidable, since their number was too small for them ever 
to claim the exercise of their rights. But such is not the 
case in the south. The question of slavery was a question 
of commerce and manufacture for the slave-owners in the 
north ; for those of the south, it is a question of life and 
death. God forbid that I should seek to justify the principle 
of negro slavery, as has been done by some American writ¬ 
ers ! But I only observe that all the countries which formerly 
adopted that execrable principle are not equally able to aban¬ 
don it at the present time. 

When I contemplate the condition of the south, I can only 
discover two alternatives which may be adopted by the white 
inhabitants of those states: viz., either to emancipate the 

of the north would never consent to expend such great sums, for a pur¬ 
pose which would procure such small advantages to themselves. If 
the Union took possession of the slaves in the southern states by force, 
or at a rate determined by law, an insurmountable resistance would 
arise in that part of the country. Both alternatives are equally impos¬ 
sible. 

* In 1830 there were in the United States 2,010,327 slaves and 
319,439 blacks, in all 2,329,766 negroes, which formed about one-fifth 
of the total population of the United States at that time. 

[In 1840 there were in the United States 2,486,348 slaves, and 
386,232 free blacks; in all, 2,872,580 negroes, which formed about 
one-sixth of the total population.] 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 


383 


negroes, and to intermingle with them ; or, remaining isolated 
from them, to keep them in a state of slavery as long as pos¬ 
sible. All intermediate measures seem to me likely to ter- 
minate, and that shortly, in the most horrible of civil wars, 
and perhaps in the extirpation of one or other of the two 
races. Such is the view which the Americans of the south 
take of the question, and they act consistently with it. As 
they are determined not to mingle with the negroes, they re¬ 
fuse to emancipate them. 

Not that the inhabitants of the south regard slavery as 
necessary to the wealth of the planter; for on this point 
many of them agree with their northern countrymen in freely 
admitting that slavery is prejudicial to their interests ; but 
they are convinced that, however prejudicial it may be, they 
hold their lives upon no'other tenure. The instruction which 
is now diffused in the south has convinced the inhabitants that 
slavery is injurious to the slave-owner, but it has also shown 
them, more clearly than before, that no means exist of getting 
rid of its bad consequences. Hence arises a singular con¬ 
trast ; the more the utility of slavery is contested, the more 
firmly is it established in the laws ; and while the principle 
of servitude is gradually abolished in the north, that self-same 
principle gives rise to more and more rigorous consequences 
in the south. 

The legislation of the southern states, with regard to slaves, 
presents at the present day such unparalleled atrocities, as suf¬ 
fice to show how radically the laws of humanity have been 
perverted, and to betray the desperate position of the commu¬ 
nity in which that legislation has been promulgated. The 
Americans of this portion of the Union have not, indeed, aug¬ 
mented the hardships of slavery; they have, on the contrary, 
bettered the physical condition of the slaves. The only 
means by which the ancients maintained slavery were fet¬ 
ters and death; the Americans of the south of the Union 
have discovered more intellectual securities for the duration of 
their power. They have employed their despotism and their 
violence against the human mind. In antiquity, precautions 
were taken to prevent the slave from breaking his chains; at 
the present day measures are adopted to deprive him even of 
the desire of freedom. The ancients kept the bodies of their 
slaves in bondage, but they placed no restraint upon the mind 
and no check upon education; and they acted consistently 
with their established principle, since a natural termination of 
slavery then existed, and one day or other the slave might be 
set free, and become the equal of his master. But the Arne- 


384 


PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF 


ricans of the south, who do not admit that the negroes can 
ever be commingled with themselves, have forbidden them to 
be taught to read or to write, under severe penalties ; and as 
they will not raise them to their own level, they sink them as 
nearly as possible to that of the brutes. 

The hope of liberty had always been allowed to the slave 
to cheer the hardships of his condition. But the Americans 
of the south are well aware that emancipation cannot but be 
dangerous, when the freed man can never be assimilated to 
his former master. To give a man his freedom, and to leave 
him in wretchedness and ignominy, is nothing less than to 
prepare a future chief for a revolt of the slaves. Moreover, 
it has long been remarked, that the presence of a free negro 
vaguely agitates the minds of his less fortunate brethren, and 
conveys to them a dim notion of their rights. The Ameri¬ 
cans of the south have consequently taken measures to pre¬ 
vent slave-owners from emancipating their slaves in most 
cases ; not indeed by a positive prohibition, but by subjecting 
that step to various forms which it is difficult to comply with. 

I happened to meet with an old man, in the south of the 
Union, who had lived in illicit intercourse with one of his ne- 
gresses, and had had several children by her, who were born 
the slaves of their father. He had indeed frequently thought 
of bequeathing to them at least their liberty ; but years had 
elapsed without his being able to surmount the legal obstacles 
to their emancipation, and in the meanwhile his old age was 
come, and he was about to die. He pictured to himself his 
sons dragged from market to market, and passing from the 
authority of a parent to the rod of the stranger, until these 
horrid anticipations worked his expiring imagination into 
phrensy. When I saw him he was a prey to all the anguish 
of despair, and he made me feel how awful is the retribution 
of Nature upon those who have broken her laws. 

These evils are unquestionably great; but they are the ne¬ 
cessary and foreseen consequences of the very principle of 
modern slavery. When the Europeans chose their slaves 
from a race differing from their own, which many of them 
considered as inferior to the other races of mankind, and 
which they all repelled with horror from any notion of inti¬ 
mate connexion, they must have believed that slavery would 
last for ever; since there is no intermediate state which can 
be durable, between the excessive inequality produced by 
servitude, and the complete equality which originates in inde¬ 
pendence. The Europeans did imperfectly feel this truth, 
but without acknowledging it even to themselves. Whenever 


THE THREE RACES INHABITING THE U. S. 


385 


they have had to do with negroes, their conduct has either 
been dictated by their interest and their pride, or by their 
compassion. They first violated every right of humanity by 
their treatment of the negro ; and they afterward informed 
him tha.t those rights were precious and inviolable. They 
-atfected to open their ranks to the slave, but the negroes 
who attempted to penetrate into the community were driven 
back with scorn; and they have incautiously and in¬ 
voluntarily been led to admit of freedom instead of slavery, 
without having the courage to be wholly iniquitous, or wholly 
just, (a) 

If it be impossible to anticipate a period at w’hich the 
Americans of the south will mingle their blood with that of 
the negroes, can they allow theii slaves to become free with¬ 
out compromising their own security ? And if they are obliged 
to keep that race in bondage, in order to save their own fami¬ 
lies, may they not be excused for availing themselves of the 
means best adapted to that end ? The events which are tak¬ 
ing place in the southern states of the Union, appear to be at 
once the most horrible and the most natural results of slavery. 
Whe#! see the order of nature overthrown, and when I hear 
the cry of humanity in its vain struggle against the laws, 
my indignation does not light upon the men of our own time 
who were the instruments of these outrages ; but I reserve 
my execration for those who, after a thousand years of free¬ 
dom, brought back slavery into the world once nKDre. 

Whatever may be the efforts of the Americans of the south 
to maintain slavery, they will not always succeed. Slavery, 
which is now confined to a single tract of the civilized earth, 
which is attacked by Christianity as unjust, and by political 
economy as prejudicial, and which is now contrasted with 
democratic liberties and the information of our age, cannot 
survive. By the choice of the master or the will of the 
slave, it will cease; and in either case great calamities may 
be expected to ensue. If liberty be refused to the negroes of 
the^ south, they will in the end seize it for themselves by 
force; if it be given, they will abuse it ere long. 

(a) fn the original, “ Voulant la servitude, il se sont laisse entrainer, 
mal're eux ou a leur insu, vers la liberte ” 

“ Desiring servitude, they have suffered themselves, involuntarily or 
ignorantly, to be drawn toward liberty .”—Reviser 

34 



386 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


WHAT ARE ' THE CHANCES IN FAVOR OF THE DURATION OF 
THE AMERICAN UNION, AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 

Reasons why the preponderating Force lies in' the States rather than in 
the Union —The Union will only last as long as all the States 
choose to belong to it.—Causes which tend to keep them united.— 
Utility of the Union to resist foreign Enemies, and to prevent the 
Existence of Foreigners in America.—No natural Barriers between 
the several States.—^No conflicting Interests to divide them.—Re¬ 
ciprocal Interests of the Northern, Southern, and Western States.— 
Intellectual ties of Union —Uniformity of Opinions.—Dangers of 
the Union resulting from the different Characters and the Passions 
of its Citizens.—Character of the Citizens in the South and in the 
North.—The rapid growth of the Union one of its greatest Dangers. 
—^Progress of the Population to the Northwest.—Power gravitates 
in the same Direction.—Passions originating from sudden turns of 
Fortune.—Whether the existing Government of the Union tends to 
gain strength, or to lose it.—Various signs of its Decrease.—Internal 
Inprovement.—Waste Lands.—Indians.—The Bank.—The Tariff. 
—General Jackson. 

c ’ 

The maintenance of the existing institutions of the several 
states depends in some measure upon the maintenance of the 
Union itself. It is therefore important in the first instance to 
inquire into the probable fate of the Union. One point may 
indeed be assumed at once ; if the present confederation were 
dissolved, it appears to me to be incontestable that the states 
of which it is now composed would not return to their origi¬ 
nal isolated condition ; but that several Unions would then 
be formed in the place of one. It is not my intention to in¬ 
quire into the principles upon which these new Unions would 
probably be established, but merely to show what the causes 
are which may effect the dismemberment of the existing 
confederation. 

With this object I shall be obliged to retrace some of the 
steps which I have already taken, and to revert to topics 
which I have before discussed. I am aware that the reader 
may accuse me of repetition, but the importance of the mat¬ 
ter which still remains to be treated is my excuse; I had 
rather say too much, than say too little to be thoroughly un¬ 
derstood, and I prefer injuring the author to slighting the 
subject. 

The legislators who formed the constitution of 1789 en¬ 
deavored to confer a distinct and preponderating authority 
upon the federal power. But they were confined by the con¬ 
ditions of the task which they had undertaken to perform. 
They were not appointed to constitute the governrnent of a 


AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


387 


single people, but to regulate the association of several states ; 
and, whatever their inclinations might be, they could not but 
divide the exercise of sovereignty in the end. 

In order to understand the consequences of this division, 
it is necessary to make a short distinction between the affairs 
of government. There are some objects which are national 
by their very nature, that is to say, which affect the nation 
as a body, and can only be intrusted to the man or the assem- 
bly of men who most completely represent the entire nation. 
Among these may be reckoned w^ar and diplomacy. There 
are other objects which are provincial by their very nature, 
that is to say, which only affect certain localities, and which 
can only be properly treated in that locality. Such, for in¬ 
stance, is the budget of municipality. Lastly, there are 
certain objects of a mixed nature, which are national inas¬ 
much as they affect all the citizens who compose the nation, 
and which are provincial inasmuch as it is not necessary that 
the nation itself should provide for them all. Such are the 
rights which regulate the civil and political condition of the 
citizens. No society can exist without civil and political 
rights. These rights therefore interest all the citizens alike; 
but it is not always necessary to the existence and the pros¬ 
perity of the nation that these rights should be uniform, nor 
consequently, that they should be regulated by the central 
authority. - - 

There are, then, two distinct categories of objects which 
are submitted -to the direction of the sovereign power; and 
these categories occur in all well-constituted communities, 
whatever the basis of the political constitution may otherwise 
be. . Between these two extremes, the objects which I have 
termed mixed may be considered to lie. As these objects 
are neither exclusively national nor entirely provincial, they 
may be attained by a national or a provincial gqverriment, 
according to the agreement of the contracting parties, with¬ 
out in any way impairing the contract of association. 

The sovereign power is usually formed by the union of 
separate individuals, who compose a people; and individual 
powers or collective-'forces, each representing a-very small 
portion of the sovereign authority, are the sole elements which 
are subjected to the general government of their choice. In 
this case the general government is more naturally called 
upon to regulate, not only those affairs which are of essen¬ 
tial national importance, but those which are of a more local 
interest; and the local governments are reduced to that small 



388 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION. 


share of sovereign authority which is indispensable to their 
prosperity. 

But sometimes the sovereign authority is composed of pre¬ 
organized political bodies, by virtue of circumstances anterior 
to their union ; and in this case the provincial governments 
assume the control, not only of those affairs which more pecu¬ 
liarly belong to their province, but of all, or of a part of the 
mixed affairs to which allusion has been made. For the con¬ 
federate nations which were independent sovereign states be¬ 
fore their Union, and which still represent a very considerable 
share of the sovereign power, have only consented to cede to 
the general government the exercise of those rights which are 
indispensable to the Union. 

When the national government, independently of the pre¬ 
rogative inherent in its nature, is invested with the right of re¬ 
gulating the affairs which relate partly to the general and partly 
to the local interest, it possesses a preponderating influence. 
Not only are its own rights extensive, but all the rights which 
it does not possess exist by its sufferance, and it may be ap¬ 
prehended that the provincial governments may be deprived 
of their natural and necessary prerogatives by its influence. 

When, on the other hand, the provincial governments are 
invested with the power of regulating those same afiairs of 
mixed interest, an opposite tendency prevails in society. The 
preponderating force resides in the province, not in the nation ; 
and it may be apprehended that the national government may 
in the end be stripped of the privileges which are necessary 
to its existence. 

Independent nations have'therefore a natural tendency to 
centralization, and confederations to dismemberment. 

It now only remains for us to apply these general principles 
to the American Union. The several states were necessarily 
possessed of the right of regulating all exclusively provincial 
affairs. Moreover these same states retained the right of de¬ 
termining the civil and political competency of the citizens, 
of regulating the reciprocal relations of the members of the 
community, and of dispensing justice ; rights which are of a 
general nature, but which do not necessarily appertain to the 
national government. We have shown that the government 
of the Union is invested with the power of acting in the name 
of the whole nation, in those cases in which the nation has to 
appear as a single and undivided power ; as, for instance, in 
foreign relations, and in offering a common resistance to a 
common enemy ; in short, in conducting those affairs which I 
have styled exclusively national. 


AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


389 


In this division of the rights of sovereignty, the share of 
the Union seems at first sight to be more considerable than’ 
that of the states ; but a more attentive investigation shows it 
to be less so. The undertakings of the government of the 
Union are more vast, but their influence is more rarely felt. 
Those of the provincial government are comparatively small, 
but they are incessant, and they serve to keep alive the au¬ 
thority which they represent. The government of the Union 
watches the general interests of the country ; but the general 
interests of a people have a very questionable influence 
upon individual happiness ; while provincial interests produce 
a most immediate effect upon the welfare of the inhabitants. 
The Union secures the independence and the greatness of the 
nation, which do not immediately affect private citizens ; but 
the several states maintain the liberty, regulate the rights, 
protect the fortune, and secure the life and the whole future 
prosperity of every citizen. 

The federal government is very far removed from its sub¬ 
jects, while the provincial governments are within the reach 
of them all, and are ready to attend to the smallest appeal. 
The central government has upon its side the passions of a 
few superior men who aspire to conduct it; but upon the side 
of the provincial governments are the interests of all those 
second-rate individuals who can only hope to obtain power 
within their own state, and who nevertheless exercise the 
largest share of authority over the people because they are 
placed nearest to its level .. 

The Americans have therefore much more to hope and to 
fear from the states than from the Union ; and, in conformity 
with the natural tendency of the human mind, they are more 
likely to attach themselves to the former than to the latter. 
In this respect their habits and feelings harmonize with their 
interests. 

When a compact nation divides its sovereignty, and adopts 
a confederate form of government, the traditions, the customs, 
and the manners of the people are for a long time at variance 
with their legislation ; and the former tend to give a degree 
of influence to the central government which the latter forbids. 
When a number of confederate states unite to form a single 
nation, the same causes operate in an opposite direction. I 
have no doubt that if France were to become a confederate 
republic like that of the United States, the government would 
at first display more energy than that of the Union ; and if 
the Union were to alter its constitution to a monarchy like that 
of France, I think that the American government \yould be a 
35 =" 






390 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


long time in acquiring the force which now rules the latter 
nation. When the national existence of the Anglo-Americans 
began, their provincial existence was already of long standing; 
necessary relations were established between the townships 
and the individual citizens of the same states ; and they were 
accustomed to consider some objects as common to them all, 
and to conduct other affairs as exclusively relating to their 
own special interests. 

The Union is a vast body, which presents no definite object 
to patriotic feeling. The forms and limits of the state are 
distinct and circumscribed ; since it represents a certain num¬ 
ber of objects which are familiar to the citizens and beloved 
by all. It is identified with the very soil, with the right of 
property and the domestic affections, with the recollections of 
the past, the labors of the present, and the hopes of the future. 
Patriotism, then, which is frequently a mere extension of indi¬ 
vidual egotism, is still directed to the state, and is not excited 
by the Union. Thus the tendency of the interests, the habits, 
and the feelings of the people, is to centre political activity in 
the states, in preference to the Union. 

It is easy to estimate the different forces of the twn govern¬ 
ments, by remarking the manner in which they fulfil their 
respective functions. Whenever the government of a state 
has occasion to address an individual, or an assembly of indi¬ 
viduals, its language is clear and imperative ; and such is also 
the tone of the federal government in its intercourse with in¬ 
dividuals ; but no sooner has it anything to do with a state, 
than it begins to parley, to explain its motives, and to justify 
its conduct, to argue, to advise, and in short, anything but to 
command. If doubts are raised as to the limits of the con¬ 
stitutional powers of each government, the provincial govern¬ 
ment prefers its claims with boldness, and takes prompt and 
energetic steps to support it. In the meanwhile the govern¬ 
ment of the Union reasons, it appeals to the interests, to the 
good sense, to the glory of the nation; it temporizes, it 
negotiates, and does not consent to act until it is reduced to 
the last extremity. At first sight it might readily be imagined 
that it is the provincial government which is armed with the au¬ 
thority of the nation, and that congress represents a single state. 

The federal government is, therefore, notwithstanding the 
precautions of those who founded it, naturally so weak, that it 
more peculiarly requires the free consent of the governed to 
enable it to subsist. It is easy to perceive that its object is to 
enable the states to realize with facility their determination of 
remaining united ; and, as long as this preliminary considera- 


A.ND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


391 


tion exists, its authority is great, temperate, and effective. The 
constitution fits the government to control individuals, and 
easily to surmount such obstacles as they may be inclined to 
offer, but it was by no means established with a view to the 
possible separation of one or more of the states from the Union. 

If the sovereignty of the Union were to engage in a struggle 
with that of the states at the present day, its defeat may be 
confidently predicted ; and it is not probable that such a strug¬ 
gle would be seriously undertaken. As often as steady re¬ 
sistance is offered to the federal government, it will be found 
10 yield. Experience has hitherto shown that whenever a 
state has demanded anything with perseverance and resolu¬ 
tion, it has invariably succeeded ; and that if a separate go¬ 
vernment has distinctly refused to act, it was left to do as it 
thought fit.* 

But even if the government of the Union had any strength 
inherent in itself, the physical situation of the country would 
render the exercise of that strength very difficult.f The 
United States cover an immense territory ; they are separated 
from each other by great distances ; and the population is dis¬ 
seminated over the surface of a country which is still half a 
wilderness. If the Union were to undertake to enforce,the 
allegiance of the confederate states by military means, it 
would be in a position very analogous to that of England at 
the time of the war of independence. 

However strong a government may be, it cannot easily 
escape from the consequences of a principle which it has 
once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The 
Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; 
and, in uniting together, they have not forfeited their nation¬ 
ality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and 
the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its 
name from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its 
right of doing so; and the federal government would have no 
means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or 
by right. In order to' enable the federal government easily 
to*conquer the resistance which may be offered to it by any 
one of-its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of 

* See the conduct of the northern states in the war of 1812. Du¬ 
ring that war,” said Jefferson, in a letter to General^ Lafayette^ “ four 
of the eastern states were only attached to the Union, like so many 
inanimate bodies to living men.” 

t The profound peace of the Union affords no pretext for a standing 
army; and without a standing army a government is not prepared to 
profit by a favorable opportunity to conquer resistance, and take the 
sovereign power by surprise. 





392 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


them should be especially interest'^d in the existence of the 
Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of con¬ 
federations. 

If it be supposed that among the states which are united 
by the federal tie, there are some which exclusively enjoy 
the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity de¬ 
pends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that 
they will always be ready to support the central government 
in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the govern¬ 
ment would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, 
but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form con¬ 
federations in order to derive equal advantages from their 
union; and in the case just alluded to, the federal govern¬ 
ment would derive its power from the unequal distribution 
of those benefits among the states. ^ 

If one of the confederated states have acquired a prepon¬ 
derance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive pos¬ 
session of the central authority, it will consider the other 
states as subject provinces, and will cause its own supremacy 
to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty 
of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name 
of the federal government, but in reajity that government 
will have ceased to exist.* In both these cases, the power 
which acts in the name of the confederation becomes stronger, 
the more it abandons the natural state and the acknowledged 
principles of confederations. 

In America the existing Union is advantageous to all the 
states, but it is not indispensable to any one of them. Several 
of them might break the federal tie without compromising the 
welfare of the others, although their own prosperity would be 
lessened. As the existence and the happiness of none of the 
states are wholly dependent on the present constitution, they 
would none of them be disposed to make great personal sac¬ 
rifices to maintain it. On the other hand, there is no state 
which seems, hitherto, to have its ambition much interested 
in the maintenance of the existing Union. They certainly 
do not all exercise the same influence in the federal councils, 
but no one of them can hope to domineer over the rest, or to 
treat them as its inferiors or as its subjects. 

It appears to me unquestionable, that if any portion of the 
Union seriously desired to separate itself from the other states, 

* Thus the province of Holland in the republic of the Low Countries, 
and the emperor in the Germanic Confederation, have someflmes put ' 
themselves in the place of the Union, and have employed the federal 
authority to their own advantage. 



AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


393 


they would not be able, nor indeed would they attempt, to 
prevent it; and that the present Union will only last as 
long as the states which compose it choose to continue mem- 
bers of the confederation. If this point be admitted, the ques¬ 
tion becomes less difficult; and our object is not to inquire 
whether the states of the existing Union are capable of sepa¬ 
rating, but whether they will choose to remain united. 

[The remarks respecting the inability of the federal government to 
retain within the Union any state that may choose “to withdraw its 
name from the contract,” ought not to pass through an American edi¬ 
tion of this work, without the expression of a dissent by the editor 
from the opinion of the author. The laws of the United States must 
remain in force in a revolted state, until repealed by congress; the 
customs and postages must be collected; the courts of the United 
States must sit, and must decide the causes submitted to them ; as has 
been very happily explained by the author, the courts act upon indi¬ 
viduals. If their judgments are resisted, the executive arm must in¬ 
terpose, and if the state authorities aid in the resistance, the military 
power of the whole Union must be invoked to overcome it. So long 
as the laws affecting the citizens of such a state remain, and so long 
as there reipain any officers of a general government to enforce them, 
these results must follow not only theoretically but actually. The 
author probably formed the opinions which are the subject of these 
remarks, at the commencement of the controversy with South Carolina 
respecting the tariff And when they were written and published, 
he had not learned the result of that controversy, in which the'supre¬ 
macy of the Union and its laws was triumphant. There was doubt¬ 
less great reluctance in adopting the necessary measures to collect the 
customs, and to bring every legal question that could possibly arise out 
of the controversy, before the judiciary of the United States, but they 
were finally adopted, and were not the less successful for being the re¬ 
sult of deliberation and of necessity. Out of that controversy have 
arisen some advantages of a permanent character, produced by the le¬ 
gislation which it required. There were defects in the laws regulating 
the manner of bringing from the state courts into those of the United 
States, a cause involving the constitutionality of acts of congress 
or of the states, through which the federal authority might be 
evaded. Those defects were remedied by the legislation referred to; 
and it is now more emphatically and universally true, than when the 
author wrote, that the acts of the general government operate through 
the judiciarv, upon individual citizens, and not upon the states.— 
American Editor."I 

Among the various reasons which tend to render the exist¬ 
ing Union useful to the Americans, two principal causes are 
peculiarly evident to the observer. Although the Americans 
are, as it were, alone upon their continent, their commerce 
makes them the neighbors' of all the nations with which they 
trade. Notwithstanding their apparent isolation, the Ameri¬ 
cans require a certain degree of strength, which they cannot 




394 DURATION OF. THE AMERICAN UNION, 

retain otherwise than by remaining united to each other. If 
the states were to split, they would not only diminish the 
strength which they are now able to display toward foreign 
nations, but they would soon create foreign powers upon their 
own territory. A system of inland custom-houses would then 
be established ; the valleys would be divided by imaginary 
boundary lines ; the courses of the rivers would be confined 
by territorial distinctions; and a multitude of hindrances 
would prevent the Americans from exploring the whole of 
that vast continent which Providence has allotted to them for 
a dominion. At present they have no invasion to fear, and 
consequently no standing armies to maintain, no taxes to levy. 
If the Union were dissolved, all these burdensome measures 
might ere long be required. The Americans are then very 
powerfully interested in the maintenance of their Union. On 
the other hand, it is almost impossible to discover any sort of 
material interest which might at present tempt a portion of 
the Union to separate from the other states. 

When we cast our eyes upon the map of the United States, 
we perceive the chain of the Allegany mountains, running 
from the northeast to the southwest, and crossing nearly one 
thousand miles of country ; and we are led to imagine that 
the design of Providence was to raise, between the valley of 
the Mississippi and the coasts of the Atlantic ocean, one of those 
natural barriers which break the mutual intercourse of men, 
and form the necessary limits of different states. But the 
average height of the Alleganies does not exceed 2,500 feet; 
their greatest elevation is not above 4,000 feet; their rounded 
summits, and the spacious valleys which they conceal within 
their passes, are of easy access from several sides. Beside 
which, the principal rivers that fall into the Atlantic ocean, 
the Hudson, the Susquehannah, and the Potomac, take their 
rise beyond the Alleganies, in an open district, which bor¬ 
ders upon the valley of the Mississippi. These streams quit 
this tract of country,* make their way through the barrier 
which would seem to turn them westward, and as they wind 
through the mountains, they open an easy and natural pas¬ 
sage to man. 

No natural barrier exists in the regions which are now in¬ 
habited by the Anglo-Americans; the Alleganies are so 
far from serving as a boundary to separate nations, that they 
do not even serve as a frontier to the states. New York, 
Pennsylvania, and Virginia, comprise them within their bor- 

• See Darby’s View of the United States, pp 64, 79. 



AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


395 


ders, and extend as much to the wevSt as to the east of the 
line. 

The territory now occupied by the twenty-four states of 
the Union, and the three great districts which have not yet 
acquired the rank of states, although they already contain 
inhabitants, covers a surface of 1,002,600 square miles,* 
which is about equal to five times the extent of France. 
Within these limits the qualities of the soil, the temperature, 
and the produce of the country, are extremely various. The 
vast extent of territory ^occupied by the Anglo-American re¬ 
publics has given rise to doubts as to the maintenance of the 
Union. Here a distinction must be made; contrary inter¬ 
ests sometimes arise in the different provinces of a vast em¬ 
pire, which often terminate in open dissensions; and the 
extent of the country is then most prejudicial to the power of 
the state. But if the inhabitants of these vast regions are 
not divided by contrary interests, the extent of the territory 
may be favorable to their prosperity ; for the unity of the 
government promotes the interchange of the different produc¬ 
tions of the soil, and increases their value by facilitating their 
consumption. 

It is indeed easy to discover different interests in the differ¬ 
ent parts of the Union, but I am unacquainted with any 
which are hostile to each other. The southern states are al¬ 
most exclusively agricultural : the northern states are more 
peculiarly commercial and manufacturing; the states of the 
west are at the same time agricultural and manufacturing. 
In the south the crops consist of tobacco, of rice, of cotton, 
and of sugar ; in the north and the west, of wheat and maize : 
these are different sources of wealth ; but union is the means 
by which these sources are opened to all, and rendered 
equally advantageous to the several districts. 

The north, which ships the produce of the Anglo-Americans 
to all parts of the world, and brings back the produce of the 
globe to the Union, is evidently interested in maintaining the 
confederation in its present condition, in order that the num- 

* See Darby’s Yiew of the United States, p. 435. [In Carey & Lea’s 
GeoG:raphy of America, the United States are said to form an area of 
2,07H,400*square inWes—Translator's JVote.'] 

[The discrepance between Darby’s estimate of the area of the United 
States given by the author, and that stated by the translator, is not 
easily accounted for. In Bradford’s comprehensive Atlas, a work 
generally of great accuracy, it is said that “ as claimed by1;his country, 
the terriWy of the United States extends from 25° to 54° north lati¬ 
tude, and from 67° 49' to 125° west longitude, over an area of about 
2,200,000 square miles .”—American Editor.'\ 



398 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


ber of American producers and consumers may remain as 
large as possible. The north is the most natural agent of 
communication between the south and the west of the Union 
on the one hand, and the rest of the world upon the other ; 
the north is therefore interested in the union and prosperity of 
the south and the west, in order that they may continue to 
[furnish raw materials for its manufactures, and cargoes for 
tts shipping. 

The south and the west, on their side, are still more directly 
interested in the preservation of the Union, and the prosperity 
of the north. The produce ed* the south is for the most part 
exported beyond seas; the south and the west consequently 
stand in need of the commercial resources of the north. 
They are likewise interested in the maintenance of a power¬ 
ful lieet by the Union, to protect them efficaciously. The 
south and the west have no vessels, but they cannot refuse a 
willing subsidy to defray the expenses of the navy ; for if 
the fleets of Europe were to blockade the ports of the south 
and the delta of the Mississippi, what would become of the 
rice of the Carolinas, the tobacco of Virginia, and the sugar 
and cotton which grow in the valley of the Mississippi ? 
Every portion of the federal budget does therefore contribute 
to the maintenance of material interests which are common 
to all the confederate states. 

Independently of this commercial utility, the south and the 
west of the Union derive great political advantages fiom their 
connexion with the north. The south contains an enormous 
slave population ; a population which is already alarming, 
and still more formidable for the future. The states of the 
west lie in the remoter part of a single valley ; and all the 
rivers which intersect their territory rise in the Rocky moun¬ 
tains or in the Alleganies, and fall into the Mississippi, which 
bears them onward to the gulf of Mexico. The western 
states are consequently entirely cut off, by their position, from 
the traditions of Europe and the civilisation of the Old World, 
The inhabitants of the south, then, are induced to support the 
Union in order to avail themselves of its protection against 
the blacks; and the inhabitants of the west, in order not to 
be excluded from a free communication with the rest of the 
globe, and shut up in the wilds of central America. The 
north cannot but desire the maintenance of the Union, in 
order to remain, as it now is, the connecting link between that 
vast body and the other parts of the world. 

The temporal interests of all the several parts of the Union 
are, then, intimately connected ; and the same assertion holds 


AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


397 


true respecting those opinions and sentiments which may oe 
termed the immaterial interests of men. 

The inhabitants of the United States talk a great deal of ^ 
their attachment to their country ; but I confess that 1 do not 
rely upon that calculating patriotism which is founded upon 
interest, and which a change in the interest at stake may ob¬ 
literate. Nor do 1 attach much importance to the language 
of the Americans, when they manifest in their daily conver¬ 
sation, the intention of maintaining the federal system adopted 
by their forefathers. A government retains its sway over a 
great number of citizens, far less by the voluntary and rational 
consent of the multitude, than by that instinctive and, to a 
certain extent, involuntary agreement, which results from 
similarity of feelings and resemblances of opinion. I will 
never admit that men constitute "a social body, simply because 
they obey the same head and the same laws. Society can 
only exist when a great number of men consider a great 
number of things in the same point of view ; when they hold 
the same opinions upon many subjects, and when the same 
occurrences suggest the same thoughts and impressions to ^ 
their minds. , 

The observer who examines the present condition of the 
United States upon this principle, will readily discover, that 
although the citizens are divided into twenty-four distinct 
sovereignties, they nevertheless constitute a single people ; and 
he may perhaps be led to think that the state of the Anglo- 
American Union is more truly a state of society, than that of 
certain nations of Europe which live under the same legisla¬ 
tion and the same prince. 

Although the Anglo-Americans have several religious sects, 
they all regard religion in the same manner. They are not 
always agreed upon the measures which are most conducive 
to good government, and they vary upon some of the forms of 
government which it is expedient to adopt; but they are una¬ 
nimous upon the general principles which ought to rule hu¬ 
man society. From Maine to the Floridas, and from Missouri to 
the Atlantic ocean, the people is held to be the legitimate 
source of all power. The same notions are entertained 
respecting liberty and equality, the liberty of the press, the 
right of association, the jury, and the responsibility of the 
agents of government. 

If we turn from their political and religious opinions to the 
moral and philosophical principles which regulate the daily 
actions of life, and govern their conduct, we shall still find 
35 






398 DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 

the same uniformity. The Anglo-Americans* acknowledge 
the absolute moral authority of the reason of the communi¬ 
ty, as they acknowledge the political authority of the mass 
of citizens ; and they hold that public opinion is the surest 
arbiter of what is lawful or forbidden, true or false. The 
majority of them believe that a man wdll be led to do what 
is just and good by following his own interests, rightly under¬ 
stood. They hold that every man is born in possession of the 
right of self-government, and that no one has the right of con¬ 
straining his fellow-creatures to be happy. They have all a 
lively faith in the perfectibility of man ; they are of opinion 
that the effects of the diffusion of knowledge must necessarily 
be advantageous, and the consequences of ignorance fatal ; 
they all consider society as a body in a state of improvement, 
humanity as a changing scene, in which nothing is, or ought 
to be, permanent; and they admit that what appears to them 
to be good to-day may be superseded by something better to¬ 
morrow. I do not give all these opinions as true, but I quote 
them as characteristic of the Americans. 

The Anglo-Americans are not only united together by those 
common opinions, but they are separated from all other na¬ 
tions by a common feeling of pride. For the last fifty years, 
no pains have been spared to convince the inhabitants of the 
United States that they constitute the only religious, enlight¬ 
ened, and free people. , They perceive that, for the present, 
their own democratic institutions succeed, while those of other 
countries fail; hence they conceive an overweening opinion 
of their superiority, and they are not very remote from 
believing themselves to belong to a distinct race of man¬ 
kind. 

The dangers which threaten the American Union do not 
originate in the diversity of interests or opinions ; but in the 
various characters and passions of the Americans. The men 
who inhabit the vast territory of the United States are almost 
all the issue of a common stock; but the effects of the cli¬ 
mate, and more especially of slavery, have gradually intro¬ 
duced very striking differences between the British settler of 
the southern states, and the British settler of the north. In 
Europe it is generally believed that slavery has rendered the 
intei’ests of one part of the Union contrary to those of another 
part; rbut I by no means remarked this to be the case ; slave- 

* It is scarcely necessary for me to observe that by the expression 
*dnglo-Americans, I only mean to designate the great majority of the 
nation ; for a certain number of isolated individuals are of course to be 
met with holding very different opinions 



AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


399 


ry has not created interests in the south contrary to those of 
the north, but it has modified the character and changed the 
habits of the natives of the south. 

I have already explained the influence which slavery has 
exerted upon the commercial ability of the Americans in the 
south ; and this same influence equally extends to their man¬ 
ners. The slave is a servant who never remonstrates, and 
who submits to everything without complaint. He may some¬ 
times assassinate, but he never withstands, his master. In 
the south there are no families so poor as not to have slaves. 
The citizen of the southern states of the Union is invested 
with a sort of domestic dictatorship from his earliest years; 
the first notion he acquires in life is, that he is born to com¬ 
mand, and the first habit he contracts is that of being obeyed 
without resistance. His education tends, then, to give him 
the character of a supercilious and a hasty man ; irasci¬ 
ble, violent, and ardent in his desires, impatient of obsta¬ 
cles, but easily discouraged if he cannot succeed upon his 
first attempt. 

The American of the northern states is surrounded by no 
slaves in his childhood ; he is even unattended by free ser¬ 
vants ; and is usually obliged to provide for his own wants. 
No sooner does he enter the world than the idea of necessity 
assails him on every side ; he soon learns to know exactly 
the natural limits of his authority ; he never expects to sub¬ 
due those who withstand him, by force ; and he knows that 
the "surest means of obtaining the support of his fellow-crea¬ 
tures, is to win their favor. He therefore becomes patient, 
reflecting, tolerant, slow to act, and persevering in his 
designs. 

In the southern states the more immediate wants of life are 
always supplied ; the inhabitants of those parts are not busied 
in the material cares of life, which are always provided for 
by others ; and their imagination is diverted to more captivat¬ 
ing and less definite objects. The American of the south is 
fond of grandeur, luxury, and renown, of gaiety, of plea¬ 
sure, and above all, of idleness; nothing obliges him to exert 
himself in order to subsist; and as he has no necessary oc¬ 
cupations, he gives way to indolence, and does not even 
attempt what would be useful. 

But the equality of fortunes, and the .absence of slavery in 
the north, plunge the inhabitants in those same cares of daily 
life which are disdained by the white population of the south. 
They are taught from infancy to combat want, and to place 
comfort above all the pleasures of the intellect or the heart. 


400 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


The imagination is extinguished by the trivial details of life; 
and the ideas become less numerous and less general, but far 
more practical and more precise. As prosperity is the sole 
aim of exertion, it is excellently well attained; nature and 
mankind are turned to the best pecuniary advantage; and 
society is dexterously made to contribute to the welfare of 
each of its members, while individual egotism is the source 
of general happiness. 

The citizen of the north has not only experience, but know- 
ledge : nevertheless, he sets but little value upon the plea¬ 
sures of knowledge ; he esteems it as the means of obtaining 
a certain end, and he is only anxious to seize its more lucra¬ 
tive applications. The citizen of the south is more given to 
act upon impulse ; he is more clever, more frank, more gene¬ 
rous, more intellectual, and more brilliant. The former, 
with a greater degree of activity, of common sense, of infor¬ 
mation, and of general aptitude, has the characteristic good 
and evil qualities of the middle classes. The latter has the 
tastes, the prejudices, the weaknesses, and the magnanimity 
of all aristocracies. 

If two men are united in society, who have the same inte¬ 
rests, and to a certain extent the same opinions, but different 
characters, diiferent acquirements, and a different style of 
civilisation, it is-probable that these men will not agree. The 
same remark is applicable to a society of nations. 

Slavery then do-s not attack the American Union directly 
in its interests, but indirectly in its manners. 

The states which gave their assent to the federal contract 
in 1790 were thirteen in number ; the Union now consists of 
twenty-four members. The population which amounted to 
nearly four millions in 1790, had more than tripled in the 
space of forty years; and in 1830 it amounted to nearly 
thirteen millions.* Changes of such magnitude cannot take 
place without some danger. 

A society of nations, as well as a society of individuals, 
derive its principal chances of duration from the wisdom 
of its members, their individual weakness, and their limited 
number. The Americans who quit the coasts of the Atlan¬ 
tic ocean to plunge into the western wilderness, are adven¬ 
turers impatient of restraint, greedy of wealth, and frequently 
m^n expelled from the states in which they were born. 
When they arrive in the deserts, they are unknown to each 

* Census of 1790. 3,929,32S. 

do 1830.12.8 ">8,16.5. 

[do. 1840.17,0o8,660.] 



AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


401 


other; and they have neither traditions, family feeling, nor 
the force of example to check their excesses. The empire 
of the laws is feeble among them ; that of morality is still 
more powerless. The settlers who are constantly peopling 
the valley of the Mississippi are, then, in every respect infe¬ 
rior to the Americans who inhabit the older parts of the Union. 
Nevertheless, they already exercise a great influence in its 
councils ; and they arrive at the government of the common¬ 
wealth before they have learned to govern themselves.* * * § 

The greater the individual weakness of each of the con¬ 
tracting parties, the greater are the chances of the duration 
of the contract; for their safety is then dependant upon their 
union. When, in 179fl, the most populous of the American 
republics did not contain 500,000 inhabitants,'!' each of them 
felt its own insignificance as an independent people, and this 
feeling rendered compliance with the federal authority more 
easy. But when one of the confederate states reckons, like 
the State of New York, two millions of inhabitants, and cov¬ 
ers an extent of territory equal in surface to a quarter of 
France,:}: it feels its own strength ; and although it may con¬ 
tinue to support the Union as advantageous to its prosperity, 
it no longer regards that body as necessary to its existence ; 
and; as it continues to belong to the federal compact, it soon 
aims at preponderance in the federal assemblies. The pro¬ 
bable unanimity of the states is diminished as their number 
increases. At present the interests of the different parts of 
the Union are not at variance; but who is able to foresee the 
multifarious changes of the future, in a country in which 
towns are founded from day to day, and states almost from 
year to year? • ^ 

Since the first settlement of the British colonies, the num¬ 
ber of inhabitants has about doubled every twenty-two years. 

I perceive ^no causes which are likely to check this progres¬ 
sive increase of the Anglo-American population for the next 
hundred years; and before that space of time has elapsed, I 
believe that the territories and dependencies of the United 
States will be covered by more than a hundred millions of 
inhabitants, and divided into forty states.§ I admit that these 

* This indeed is only a temporary danger. I have no doubt that in 
time society will assume as much stability and regularity in the west» 
as it has already done upon the coast of the Atlantic ocean, 

f Pennsvlvania contained inhabitants in 1790, 

f The area of the state of New York is about 46,000 square miles. 
See Carey & Lea’s American Geography, p. 142. 

§ If the population continues to double every twenty-two years, as it 
has done for the last two hundred years, the number of inhabitants in 

35* 








402 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


hundred millions of men have no hostile interests ; I suppose, 
on the contrary, that they are all equally interested in the 
maintenance of the Union ; but I am still of- opinion, that 
where there are a hundred millions of men, and forty distinct 
nations unequally strong, the continuance of the federal gov- 
N ernment can only be a fortunate accident. 

AVhatever faith I may have in the perfectibility of man, 
until human nature is altered, and men wholly transformed, 

I shall refuse to believe in the duration of a government 
which is called upon to hold together forty different peoples, 
disseminated over a territory equal to one-half of Europe in 
extent; to avoid all rivalry, ambition, and struggles, between 
them ; and to direct their independent activity to the accom¬ 
plishment of the same designs. 

But the greatest peril to which the Union is exposed by its 
increase, arises from the continual changes which take place 
in the position of its internal strength. The distance from 
Lake Superior to the gulf of Mexico extends from the 47th 
to the 30th degree of latitude, a distance of more than twelve ' 
hundred miles, as the bird flies. The frontier of the United 
States winds along the whole of this immense line; some¬ 
times falling within its limits, but more frequently extending 
far beyond it, into the waste. It has been calculated that the 
whites advance a mean distance of seventeen miles along the 
whole of this vast boundary.* Obstacles, such as an unpro¬ 
ductive district, a lake, or an Indian nation unexpectedly en¬ 
countered, are sometimes met with. The advancing column 
then halts for a while ; its two extremities fall back upon 
themselves, and as soon as they are reunited they proceed 
onward. This gradual and continuous progress of the Euro¬ 
pean race toward the Rocky mountains, has the solemnity of 
a providential event; it is like a deluge of men rising una- 
batedly, and daily driven onward by the hand of God. 

the United States in 1S52, will be twenty millions ; in 1874, forty- 
eight millions; and in 1896, ninety-six millions. This may still be 
the case even if the lands on the western slope of the Rocky moun¬ 
tains should be found to be unfit for cultivation. The territory which 
is already occupied can easily contain this number of inhabitants. 
One hundred millions of men disseminated over the surface of the 
twenty-four states, and the three dependencies, which constitute the 
Union, would give only 762 inhabitants to the square league : this would 
be far below the mean population of France,which is 1,063 to the square 
league; or of England, which is 1,457; and it would even be below 
the population of Switzerland, for that country, notwithstanding its 
lakes and mountains, contains 783 inhabitants to the square league. 
(See Maltebrun, vol. vi., p. 92.) 

* See Legislative Documents, 20th congress. No. 117, p. 105. 


AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


403 


Within this first line of conquering settlers, towns are 
built, and vast states founded. In 1790 there were only a 
few thousand pioneers sprinkled along the valleys of the Mis¬ 
sissippi ; and at the present day these valleys contain as 
many inhabitants as were to be found in the whole Union in 
1790. Their population amounts to nearly four millions.* 
The city of Washington was founded in 1800, in the very 
centre of the Union ; but such are the changes which have 
tak'en place, that it now stands at one of the extremities; and 
the delegates of the most remote western states are already 
obliged to perform a journey as long as that from Vienna to 
Paris.f 

All the states are borne onward at the same time in the" 
path of fortune, but of course they do not all increase and 
prosper in the same proportion. In the north of the Union 
detached branches of the Allegany chain, extending as far as 
the Atlantic ocean, form spacious roads and ports, which are 
constantly accessible to vessels of the greatest burden. But 
from the Potomac to the mouth of the Mississippi, the coast is 
sandy and flat. In this part of the Union the mouths of 
almost all the rivers are obstructed ; and the few harbors 
which exist among these lagunes, afibrd much shallower water 
to vessels, and much fewer commercial advantages than 
those of the north. 

This first natural cause of inferiority is united to another 
cause proceeding from the laws. We have already seen that 
slavery, which is abolished in the north, still exists in the 
south ; and I have pointed out its fatal consequences upon 
the prosperity of the planter himself. 

The north is therefore superior to the south both in com- 
mercej and manufacture ; the natural consequence of which 

* 3,672,317; census 1830. 

t The distance of Jefferson, the capital of the state of Missouri, to 
Washington, is 1,018 miles. (American Almanac, 1831, p. 40.) 

t The following statements will suffice to show the difference which 
exists between the commerce of the south and that of the north :— 

In 1829, the tonnage of all the merchant-vessels belonging to 
Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia (the four great southern 
states), amounted to only 5,243 tons. In the same year the tonnage of 
the vessels of the state of Massachusetts alone amounted to 17,322 tons. 
(See Legislative Documents, 21st congress, 2d session. No. 140, p. 244.) 
Thus the state of Massachusetts has three times as much shipping as 
the four abovementioned states. Nevertheless the area of the state of 
Massachusetts is only 7,335 square miles, and its population amounts 
to 610,014 inhabitants ; while the area of the four other states I have 
quoted is 210,000 square miles, and their population 3,047,767. Thus 
the area of the state of Massachusetts forms only one thirtieth part of 


404 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


is the more rapid increase of population and of wealth within 
its borders. The states situate upon the shores of the Atlantic 
ocean are already haif-pcopled. Most of the land is held by 
an owner; and these districts cannot therefore receive so 
many emigrants as the western states, where a boundless field 
is still open to their exertions. The valley of the Mississippi 
is far more fertile than the coast of the Atlantic ocean. This 
reason, added to all the others, contributes to drive the Euro¬ 
peans westward—a fact which may be rigorously demonstrat¬ 
ed by figures. It is found that the sum total of the popula¬ 
tion of all the United States has about tripled in the course 
of forty years. But in the recent states adjacent to the 
Mississippi, the population has increased thirty-one fold within 
the same space of time.* 

The relative position of the central federal power is con¬ 
tinually displaced. Forty years ago the majority of the 
citizens of the Union was established upon the coast of the 
Atlantic, in the environs of the spot upon which Washington 
now stands ; but the great body of the people is now advan¬ 
cing inland and to the north, so that in twenty years the 
majority will unquestionably be on the western side of the 
Alleganies. If the Union goes on to subsist, the basin of the 
Mississippi is evidently marked out, by its fertility and its 
extent, as the future centre of the federal government. In 
thirty or forty years, that tract of country will have assumed 
the rank which naturally belongs to it. It is easy to calcu¬ 
late that its population, compared to that of the coast of the 
Atlantic, will be, in round numbers, as 40 to 11. In a few 
years the states which founded the Union will lose the direction 
of its policy, and the population of the valleys of the Mississippi 
will preponderate in the federal assemblies. 

This constant gravitation of the federal power and influence 
toward the northwest, is shown every ten years, when a 
general census of the population is made, and the number of 


the area of the four states ; and its ponulation is five times smaller 
than theirs. (See Darby’s View of the United States.) Slavery is 
prejudicial to the commercial prosperity of the south in several different 
ways; by diminishing the spirit of enterprise among the whites, and 
by preventing them from meeting with as numerous a class of sailors 
as they require. Sailors are generally taken from the lowest ranks of 
the population. But in the southern states these lowest ranks are 
composed of slaves, and it is very difficult to employ them at sea. They 
are unable to serve as well as a white crew, and apnrehensions would 
always be entertained of their mutinying in the middle of the ocean, 
or of their escaping in the foreign countries at which they might touch 
* Darby’s view of the United'States, p. 444 


AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


405 


delegates which each state sends to congress is settled afresh.* 
In 1790 Virginia had nineteen representatives in congress. 
This number continued to increase until the year 1813, when 
it reached to twenty-three : from that time it began to decrease, 
and in 1833, Virginia elected only twenty-one representa¬ 
tives.f During the same period the state of New York 
advanced in the contrary direction; in 1790, it had ten 
representatives in congress ; in 1813, twenty-seven ; in 1823, 
thirty-four ; and in 1833, forty. The state of Ohio had only 
one representative in 1893, and in 1833, it had already nine¬ 
teen. 

It is difficult to imagine a durable union of a people which 
is rich and strong, with one which is poor and weak, and if 
it were proved that the strength and wealth of the one are not 
the causes of t)‘e weakness and poverty of the other. But 
union is still more difficult to maintain at a time at which one 
party is los’ng strength, and the other is gaining it. This 
rapid and dispro lortionate increase of certain states threatens 

* It may be seen ♦hat in the course of the last ten years (i820-’30) 
the population of oi,e district, as for instance, the state of Delaware, 
has increased in the proportion of 5 per cent. ; while that of another, 
as the territory of iV ichigan, has increased 250 per cent. Thus the 
ponulation of Virginia has augmented 13 per cent, and that of the 
border state of Ohio 61 percent., in the same space of time. The 
general table of these changes, which is given in the National Calendar, 
displays a striking picture of the unequal fortunes of the different states. 

t It has just been raid that in the course of the list term the popu¬ 
lation of Virginia b is increased 13 per cent.; and it is necessary to 
explain how the number of representatives of a state may decrease, 
when the population of that state,Tar from diminishing, is actually 
uoon the increase. I take the state of Virginia, to which I have 
alr eady alluded, as i jy term of comparison. The number of represen¬ 
tatives of Virginia in 1823 was proportionate to the total number of the 
representatives of the Union, and to the relation which its population 
bore to that of the vdiole Union ; in 1833, the number of repr 'sentatives 
of Virginia was lil ewise proportionate to the total number « f the rer^re- 
sentatives of the Union, and to the relation which its population, 
augmented in the course of ten yen's, bore to the augmented p pulation 
of the Union in the same space of time. The new number ot Virginian 
representatives wid then be to the old number, on tie one hand, as the 
new number of ail the representatives is to the old number; and, on 
the other hand, ‘is the augmentation of the population of Virginia is to 
that of the whole population of the country. Thus, if the increase of 
the population of the lesser country be to that of the greater in an 
exact inverse ratio of the proportion between the new and the old 
numbers of all the representatives, the number of representatives of 
Virgini-i-will remain stationary; and if the increase of the Virginian 
population be to that of the whole Union in a feebler ratio than the 
nrnv number of renresentatives of the Union to the old number, the 
number of the renresentatives of Virginia must decrease 


403 DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 

the independence of the others. New York might, perhaps, 
succeed with its two millions of inhabitants and its forty 
representatives, in dictating to the other states in congress. 
But even if the more powerful states make no attempt to bear 
down the lesser ones, the danger still exists ;' for there is 
almost as much in the possibility of the act as in the act itself. 
The weak generally mistrusts the justice and the reason of 
the strong. The states which increase less rapidily than the 
others, look upon those which are more favored by fortune, 
with envy and suspicion. Hence arise the deep-seated 
uneasiness and ill-defined agitation which are observable in 
the south, and which form so striking a contrast to the confi¬ 
dence and prosperity which are common to other parts of the 
Union. I am inclined to think that the hostile measures 
taken by the southern provinces upon a recent occasion, are 
attributable to no other cause. The inhabitants of the south¬ 
ern states are, of all the Americans, those who are most 
interested in the maintenance of the Union ; they would 
assuredly suffer most from being left to themselves; and 
yet they are the only citizens who threaten to break the tie of 
confederation. But it is easy to perceive that the south, 
which has given four presidents, Washington, Jefferson, 
Madison, and Monroe, to the Union ; which perceives that it 
is losing its federal influence, and that the number of its 
representatives in congress is diminishing from year to year, 
while those of the northern and western states are increasing ; 
the south, which is peopled with ardent and irascible beings, 
is becoming more and more irritated and alarmed. The 
citizens reflect upon their present position and remember 
their past influence, with the melancholy uneasiness of men 
who suspect oppression: if they discover a law of the Union 
v/hich is not unequivocally favorable to their interests, they 
protest against it as an abuse of force ; and if their ardent 
remonstrances are not listened to, they threaten to quit an 
association which loads them with burdens while it deprives 
them of their due profits. “ The tariff,” said the inhabitants 
of Carolina in 1832, “ enriches the north, and ruins the south ; 
for if this were not the case, to what can we attribute the 
continually increasing power and wealth of the north, with 
its inclement skies and arid soilq while the south, which may 
be styled the garden of America, is rapidly declining.”* 

If the changes which I have described were gradual, so that 

* See the report of its committees to the convention, which pro¬ 
claimed the nullification of the tariff in South Carolina 


AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


407 


each generation at least might have time to disappear with the > 
order of things under which it had lived, the danger would 
be less; but the progress of society in America is precipitate, 
and almost revolutionary. The same citizen may have lived 
to see his state take the lead in the Union, and afterward 
become powerless in the federal assemblies ; and an Anglo- 
American republic has been known to grow as rapidly as a 
man, passing from birth and infancy to maturity in the course of 
thirty years. It must not be imagined, however, that the states 
which lose their preponderance, also lose their population or 
or their riches ; no stop is put to their prosperity, and They 
even go on to increase more rapidly than any kingdom in 
Europe.* But they believe themselves to be impoverished 
because their wealth does not augment as rapidly as that of 
their neighbors ; and they think that their power is lost, 
because they suddenly come into collision with a power 
greater than their own.f' Thus they are more hurt in their 
feelings and their passions, than in their interests. But this 
is amply sufficient to endanger the maintenance of the Union. 

If kings and peoples had only had their true interests in view, 
ever since the beginning of the world, the name of war would 
scarcely be known among mankind. 

Thus the prosperity of the United States is the source of 
the most serious dangers that threaten them, since it tends to 
create in some of the confederate states that over-excitement 
which accompanies a rapid increase of fortune; and to 
awaken in others those feelings of envy, mistrust, and regret, 
which usually attend upon the loss of it. The Americans 
contemplate this extraordinary and hasty progress with ex¬ 
ultation ; but they would be wiser to consider it with sorrow 
and alarm. Tlie Americans of the United States must in¬ 
evitably become one of the greatest nations in the world ; ^ 

* The population of a country assuredly constitutes the first element 
of its wealth. In the ten years (1820-30) during which Virginia lost 
two of its representatives in congress, its population increased in the 
proportion of 13-7 per cent.; that of Carolina in the proportion of 15 
per cent. ; and that of Georgia 51-5 per cent. (See the American 
Almanac, 1832, p. 162.) But the population of Russia, which increases 
more rapidly than that of any other European country, only augments 
in ten years at the rate of 9-5 per cent.; of France at the rate of 7 per 
cent. ; and of Europe in general at the rate of 4-7 per cent. (See 
Maltebrun, vol. vi., p. 95.) 

t It must be admitted, however, that the depreciation which has 
taken place in the value of tobacco, during the last fifty years, has 
notably diminished the opulence of the southern planters; but this 
circumstance is as independent of the will of their northern brethren, . 
as it is of their own 


408 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


their offset will cover almost the whole of North America; 
the continent which they inhabit is their dominion, and it 
cannot escape them. What urges them to take possession of 
it so soon ? Riches, power, and renown, cannot lail to be 
V theirs at some future time ; but they rush upon their fortune 
as if but a moment remained for them to make it their own. 

I think I have demonstrated, that the existence of the pre¬ 
sent confederation depends entirely on the continued assent of 
all the confederates; and, starting from this principle, 1 have 
inquired into the causes which may induce any of the states 
to separate from the others. The Union may, however, 
perish in two different ways: one of the confederate states 
may choose to retire from the compact, and so forcibly sever 
the federal tie; and it is to this supposition that most of the 
remarks which I have made apply : or the authority of the 
federal government may be progressively intrenched on by 
the simultaneous tendency of the united republics to resume 
their independence.' The central power, successively stripped 
of all its prerogatives, and reduced to impotence by tacit con¬ 
sent, would become incompetent to fulfil its purpose; and the 
second Union would perish, like the first, by a sort of senile 
/ inaptitude. The gradual weakening of the f:;deral tie, which 
may finally lead to the dissolution of the Union, is a distinct 
circumstance, that may produce a variety of minor conse¬ 
quences before it operates so violent a change. The confe¬ 
deration might still subsist, although its government wer6 
reduced to such a degree of inanition as to paralyze the 
nation, to cause internal anarchy, and to check the general 
prosperity of the country. 

After having investigated the causes which may induce 
the Anglo-Americans to disunite, it is important to inquire 
whether, if the Union continues to subsist, their government 
will extend or contract its sphere of action, and whether it 
will become more energetic or more weak. 

The Americans are evidently disposed to look upon their 
future condition with alarm. They perceive that in most of 
the nations of the world, the exercise of the rights of sove¬ 
reignty tends to fall under the control of a few individuals, 
and they are dismayed by the idea that such will also be the 
^ case in their own country. Even the statesmen feel, or affect 
to feel, these fears; for, in America, centralization is by no 
means popular, and there is no surer means of courting the 
majority, than by inveighing against the encroachments of 
the central power. The Americans do not perceive that the 
countries in which this alarming tendency to centralization 


AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


409 


exists, are inhabited by a single people ; while the fact of the 
Union being composed of different confederate communities, 
is sufficient to baffle all the inferences which might be drawn 
from analogous circumstances. I confess that I am inclined 
to consider the fears of a great number of Americans as 
purely imaginary ; and far from participating in their dread 
of the consolidation of power in the hands of the Union, I 
think that the federal government is visibly losing strength. 

To prove this assertion I shall not have recourse to any 
remote occurrences, but to circumstances which I have my¬ 
self observed, and which belong to our own time. 

An attentive examination of what is going on in the United 
States, will easily convince us that tw’o opposite tendencies 
exist in that country, like two distinct currents flowing in con¬ 
trary directions in the same channel. The Union has now 
existed for forty-five years, and in the course of that time a 
vast number of provincial prejudices, which were at first hos¬ 
tile to its power, have died away. The patriotic feeling which 
attached each of the Americans to his own native state is be¬ 
come less exclusive; and the different paits of the Union 
have become more intimately connected the better they have 
become acquainted wdth each other. The post,* that great 
instrument of intellectual intercourse, now reaches into the 
backwoods ; and steamboats have established daily means of 
communication between the different points of the coast. An 
inland navigation of unexampled rapidity conveys commodi¬ 
ties up and down the rivers of the country.f And to these 
facilities of nature and art may be add;.d those restless crav¬ 
ings, that busymindedness, and love of pelf, which are con¬ 
stantly urging the American into active life, and bringing 
him into contact with his fellow-citizens. He crosses the 
country in every direction ; he visits all the various popula¬ 
tions of the land ; and there is not a province in France, in 
which the natives are so well known to each other as the thir¬ 
teen millions of men who cover the territory of the United 
States, 

* In 1832, the district of Michigan, which only contains 31,639 in¬ 
habitants, and is still an almost unexplored wilderness, possessed 940 
miles of mail-roads. The territory of Arkansas, which is still more 
uncultivated, was already intersected by 1,938 miles of mail-roads. 
(See report of the general post-office, 30th November, 1833.) The 
postage of newspapers alone in the whole Union amounted to $:2.54,796. 

t In the course of ten years, from 1821 to 1831, 271 steamboats have 
been launched upon the rivers which water the valley of the Missis¬ 
sippi alone. In 1829, 259 steamboats existed in the United States 
(See Legislative Documents, No. 140, p. 274.) 

36 



410 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION^ 


But while the Americans intermingle, they grow in resem¬ 
blance of each other ; the differences resulting from their 
climate, their origin, and their institutions diminish ; and they 
all draw nearer and nearer to the common type. Every 
year, thousands of men leave the north to settle in different 
parts of the Union : they bring with them their faith, their 
opinions, and their manners ; and as they are more enlighten¬ 
ed than the men among whom they are about to dwell, they 
soon rise to the head of affairs, and they adapt society to their 
own advantage. This continual emigration of the north to the 
south is peculiarly favorable to the fusion of all the different 
provincial characters into one national character. The civili¬ 
sation of the north appears tO' be the common standard, to 
which the whole nation will one day be assimilated. 

The commercial ties which unite the confederate states are 
strengthened by the increasing manufactures of the Ameri¬ 
cans ; and the union which began to exist in their opinions, 
gradually forms a part of their habits : the course of time has 
swept away the bugbear thoughts which haunted the imagina¬ 
tions of the citizens in 17^9. The federal power is not be¬ 
come oppressive; it has not destroyed the independence of 
the states; it has not subjected the confederates to monarchi¬ 
cal institutions ; and the Union has not rendered the lesser 
states dependant upon the larger ones ; but the confederation 
has continued to increase in population, in wealth, and in 
power. I am therefore convinced that the natural obstacles 
to the continuance of the American Union are not so powerful 
at the present time as they were in 1789; and that the ene¬ 
mies of the Union are not so numerous. 

Nevertheless, a careful examination of the history of the 
United States for the last forty-five years, will readily con¬ 
vince us that the federal power is declining ; nor is it difficult 
to explain the causes of this phenomenon. When the consti¬ 
tution of 1789 was promulgated, the nation was a prey to 
anarchy ; the Union, which succeeded this confusion, excited 
much dread and^much animosity ; but it was warmly sup¬ 
ported because it satisfied an imperious want. Thus, although 
it was more attacked than it is now, the federal power soon 
reached the maximum of its authority, as is usually the case 
with a government which triumphs after having braced its 
strength by the struggle. At that time the interpretation of 
the constitution seeiped to extend rather than to repress, the 
federal sovereignty; and the Union offered, in several 
respects, the appearance of a single and undivided people, 
directed in its foreign and internal policy by a single govern- 



AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


411 


ment. But to attain this pointr the people had risen, lo a cer¬ 
tain extent, above itself. 

The constitution had not destroyed the distinct sovereignty 
of the states ; and all communities, of whatever nature they 
may be, are impelled by a secret propensity to assert their 
independence. This propensity is still more deciiJed in a 
country like America, in which every village forms a sort of 
republic accustomed to conduct its own affairs. It therefore 
cost the states an effort to submit to the federal supremacy; 
and all efforts, however successful they may be, necessarily 
subside with the causes in which they originated. 

As the federal government consolidated its authority, Ame¬ 
rica resumed its rank among the nations, peace returned to 
its frontiers, and public credit was restored ; confusion was 
succeeded by a fixed state of things which was favorable to 
the full and free exercise of industrious enterprise. It was 
this very prosperity which made the Americans forget the 
cause to which it was attributable; and when once the dan¬ 
ger was passed, the energy and the patriotism which had 
enabled them to brave it, disappeared from among them. No 
sooner were they delivered from the cares which oppressed 
them, than they easily returned to their ordinary habits, and 
gave themselves up without resistance to their natural incli¬ 
nations. When a powerful government no longer appeared 
to be necessary, they once more began to think it irksome. 
The Union encouraged a general prosperity, and the states 
were not inclmed to abandon the Union ; but they desired to 
render the action of the power which represented that body 
as light as possible. The general principle of union was 
adopted, but in every minor detail there was an actual ten¬ 
dency to independence. The principle of confederation was 
every day more easily admitted and more rarely applied ; so 
that the federal government brought about its own decline, 
while it was creating order and peace. 

As soon as this tendency of public opinion began to be 
manifested externally, the leaders of parties, who live by the 
passions of the people, began to work it to their own advan¬ 
tage. The position of the federal government then became 
exceedingly critical. Its enemies were in possession of the 
popular favor ; and they obtained the right of conducting its 
policy by pledging themselves to lessen its influence. From 
that time forward, the government of the Union has invaria¬ 
bly been ’obliged to recede, as often as it has attempted to 
enter the lists with the government of the states. And when¬ 
ever an interpretation of the terms of the federal constitution 





412 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION. 


has been called for, that interpretation has most frequently 
been opposed to the Union, and favorable to the states. 

The constitution invested the federal government with the 
right of providing for the interests of the nation ; and it has 
been held that no other authority was so fit to superintend 
the “ internal improvements ” which atfected the prosperity 
of the whole Union ; such, for instance, as the cutting of 
canals. But the states were alarmed at a power, distinct 
from their own, which could thus dispose of a portion of their 
territory, and they were afraid that the central government 
would, by this means, acquire a formidable extent of patron¬ 
age within their own confines, and exercise a degree of influ¬ 
ence which they intended to reserve exclusively to their own 
agents. The democratic party, which has constantly been 
opposed to the increase of the federal authority, then accused 
the congress of usurpation, and the chief magistrate of ambi¬ 
tion. The central government was intimidated by the oppo¬ 
sition ; and it soon acknowledged its error, promising exactly 
to confine its influence, for the future, within the circle which 
was prescribed to it. 

The constitution confers upon the Union the right of treat- 
ing with foreign nations. The Indian tribes, which border 
upon the frontiers of the United States, have usually been re¬ 
garded in this light. As long as these savages consented to 
retire before the civilized settlers, the federal right was not 
contested ; but as soon as an Indian tribe attempted to fix its 
dwelling upon a given spot, the adjacent states claimed pos¬ 
session of the lands and the rights of sovereignty over the 
natives. The central government soon recognized both these 
claims ; and after it had concluded treaties with the Indians 
as independent nations, it gave them up as subjects to the 
legislative tyranny of the states.* 

Some of the states which had been founded upon the coast 
of the Atlantic, extended indefinitely to the west, into wild 
regions, where no European had ever penetrated. The 
states whose confines were irrevocably fixed, looked with a 
jealous eye upon the unbounded regions which the future 
would enable their neighbors to explore. The latter then 
agreed, with a view to conciliate the others, and to facilitate 
the act of union, to lay down their own boundaries, and to 
abandon all the territory which lay beyond those limits to the 

* See in the legislative documents already quoted in speaking of the 
Indians, the letter of the President of the United States to the Chero- 
kees, his correspondence on this subject with his agents, and his mes¬ 
sages to congress. 


A.ND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


413 


confederation at large.* Thenceforward the federal govern¬ 
ment became the owner of all the uncultivated lands which 
lie beyond the borders of the thirteen states first confederated. 
It was invested with the right of parcelling and selling them, 
and the sums derived from this source were exclusively re¬ 
served to the public treasury of the Union, in order to furnish 
supplies for purchasing tracts of country from the Indians, 
for opening roads to the remote settlements, and for accelerat¬ 
ing the increase of civilisation as much as possible. New 
states have, however, been formed in the course of time, in 
the midst of those wilds which were formerly ceded by the 
inhabitants of the shores of the Atlantic. Congress has gone 
on to sell, for the profit of the nation at large, the uncultivat¬ 
ed lands which those new states contained. But the latter 
at length asserted that, as they were now fully constituted, 
they ought to enjoy the exclusive right of converting the pro¬ 
duce of these sales to their own use. As their remonstrances 
became more and more threatening, congress thought fit to 
deprive the Union of a portion of the privileges which it had 
hitherto enjoyed ; and at the end of 1832 it passed a law by 
which the greatest part of the revenue derived from the sale 
of lands was made over to the new western republics, al¬ 
though the lands themselves were not ceded to them.f ^ 

{The remark of the author, that “ whenever an interpretation of the 
terms of the federal constitution has been called for, that interpretation 
has most frequently been opposed to the Union, and favorable to the 
8t >tes” requires considerable qualification. The instances which the 
author cites, are those of legislative interpretations, not those made by 
the judiciary. It may be questioned whether any of those cited by 
him are fair instances of interpretation. Although the then president 
and many of his friends doubted or denied the power of congress over 
many of the subjects mentioned by the author, yet the omission to ex¬ 
ercise the power thus questioned, did not proceed wholly from doubts 
of t'le constitutional authority. It must be remembered that all these 
questions affected local interests of the states or districts represented 
in congress, and the author has elsewhere shown the tendency of the 
local feeling to overcome all regard for the abstract interest of the 
Union. Hence many members have voted on these questions without 
reference to the constitutional question, and indeed without entertain¬ 
ing any doubt of their power. I'hese instances may afford proof that 
the federal power is declining, as the author contends, but they do not 

*The first act of cession was made by the state of New York in 
1780; Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, South and North Caroli¬ 
na, followed this example at different times, and lastly, the act of ces¬ 
sion of Georgia was made as recently as 1802. 

t It is true that the president refused his assent to this law; but he 
completely adopted it in principle. See message of 8th Decem¬ 
ber, 1833. 


414 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


prove any actual interpretation of the constitution. And so numerous 
and Various are the circumstances to influence the decision of a le^islu- 
tive body like the congress of the United States, that the people do 
not regard them as sound and authoriUtive expositions of the true 
sense of the constitution, except perhaps in those very few cases, 
where there has been a constant and uninterrupted practice from the 
organization of the government. The judiciary is looked to as the 
only authentic expounder of the constitution, and until a law of con¬ 
gress has passed that ordeal, its constitutionality is open to question: 
of which our history furnishes many examples.There are er¬ 

rors in some of the instances given by our author, which would materi¬ 
ally mislead, if not corrected That in relation to the Indians proceeds 
upon the assumption that the United States claimed some rights over 
Indians or the territory occupied by them, inconsistent with the 
claims of the states. But this is a mistake. As to their lands, the 
United States never pretended to any right in them, except such as 
was granted by the cessions of the states. The principle universally 
acknowledged in the courts of the United States and of the several 
states, is, that by the treaty with Great Britain in which the independ¬ 
ence of the colonies was acknowledged, the states became severally 
and individually independent, and as such succeeded to the rights of 
the crown of England to and over the lands within the boundaries of 
the respective states. The right of the crown in these lands was the 
absolute ownership, subject only to the rights of occupancy by the 
Indians so long as they remained a tribe. This right devolved to each 
state by the treaty which established their independence, and the 
United States have never questioned it. See 6th Cranch, 87 ; 8th 
Wheaton, 502, S84 ; 17th Johnson’s Reports, 231. On the otlier hand, 
the right of holding treaties with the Indians has universally been 
conceded to the United States. The right of a state to the lands oc¬ 
cupied by the Indians, within the boundaries of such state, does not in 
the least conflict with the right of holding treaties on national subjects 
by the United States with those Indians. With respect to Indians re¬ 
siding in any territory without the boundaries of any state, or on lands 
ceded to the United States, the case is different; the United States 
are in such cases the proprietors of the soil, subject to the Indian 
right of occupancy, and when that right is extinguished the proprie¬ 
torship becomes absolute. It will be seen, then, that in relation to 
the Indians and their lands, no question could arise respecting the in¬ 
terpretation of the constitution. The observation that “ as soon as an 
Indian tribe attempted to fix its dwelling upon a given spot, the adja¬ 
cent states claimed possession of the lands, and the rights of sovereign¬ 
ty over the natives”—is a strange compound of error and of truth. 
As above remarked, the Indian right of occupancy has ever been re¬ 
cognized by the states, with the exception of the case referred to by 
the author, in which Georgia claimed the right to possess certain 
lands occupied by the Cherokees. This was anomalous, and grew 
out of treaties and cessions, the details of which are too numerous and 
complicated for the limits of a note. But in no other cases have the 
states ever claimed the possession of lands occupied by Indians, with¬ 
out having previously extinguished their right by purchase. 

As to the rights of sovereignty over the natives, the principle admit¬ 
ted in the United States is that all persons within the territorial limits 
of a state are and of necessity must be, subject to the jurisdiction of 
its laws. While the Indian tribes were numerous, distinct, and sepa¬ 
rate from the whites, and possessed a government of their own, the 




AND WHAT DANGEHS THREATEN IT. 


415 


state authorities, from considerations of policy, abstained from the ex¬ 
ercise of criminal jurisdiction for oflences committed by the Indians 
among themselves, although for olfences against the whites they were 
subjected to the operation of the state laws. But as these tribes dimi 
nished in numbers, as those whx) remained among them became ener¬ 
vated bv bad habi-'s, and ceased to exercise any effectual government, 
humanity demanded that the power of the states should be interposed 
to protect the miserable remnants 1‘rom the violence and outrage of 
each other. The first recorded instance of interposition in such a case 
was in IS-21, when an Indian of the Seneca trihe in the state of New 
York was tried and convicted of murder on a squaw of the tribe. The 
eourts declared their competency to take cognizance of such offences, 

and the legislature confirmed the declaration by a law.--Another 

instance of what the author calls interpretation of the constitutim 
against the general government, is given by him in the proposed act of 
iS32, which passed both houses of congress, but was vetoed by the 
president, by which, as he says, ^ the greatest part of the revenue de¬ 
rived from the sale of lands, was made over to the new western repub¬ 
lics,” But this act was not founded on any doubt of the title of the 
United States to the lands in question, or of its constitutional power 
over them, and cannot be cited as any evidence of the interpretation of 
the constitution. An error of fact in this statement ought to be cor¬ 
rected. The bill to which the author refers, is doubtless that usually 
called Mr. Clay’s land bill. Instead of making over the greatest part 
of the revenue to the new states, it appropriated twelve and a half per 
cent to them, in addition to five per cent, which had been originally 
^rmted for the purpose of making roads. See Niles’s Register, vol. 42, 
p. 355 .—American auditor. 

The slightest observation in the United States enables one 
to appreciate the advantages which the country derives from 
the bank. These advantages are of several kinds, but one of 
them is peculiarly striking to the stranger. The bank-notes 
of the United States are taken upon the borders of the desert 
f^r the same value as at Philadelphia, where the bank con¬ 
ducts its operations.* 

The bank of the United States is nevertheless an object of 
great animosity. Its directors have proclaimed their hostility 
to the president; and they are accused, not without some 
show of probability, of having abused their influence to 
thwart his election. The pres-ident therefore attacks the 
estaolishment which they represent, with all the warmth of 
personal enmity ; and he is encouraged in the pursuit of his 
revenge by the conviction that he is supported by the secret 
propensities of the majority. The bank may be regarded as 
the great monetary tie of the Union, just as congress is the 

The present bank of the United States was established in 1816, 
with a capital of 35,000,000 dollars ; its charter expires in 1836. Last 
year congress passed a law to renew it, but the president put his veto 
upon the bill. The struggle is still going on with great violence on 
either side, and the speedy fall of the bank may easily be foreseen. 






41b' DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 

great legislative tie; and the same passions which tend fa- 
render the states independent of the central power, contribute 
to the overthrow of the bank. 

The bank of the United States always holds a great number 
of the notes issued by the provincial banks, which it can at 
any time oblige them to convert into cash. It has itseli' 
nothing to fear from a similar demand, as the extent of its 
resources enables it to meet all claims. But the existence of 
the provincial banks is thus threatened, and their operations 
are restricted, since they are only able to issue a quantity of 
notes duly proportioned to their capital. They submit with 
impatience to this salutary control. The newspapers which 
they have bought over, and the president, w-hose interest 
renders him their instrument, attack the bank with the great¬ 
est vehemence. They rouse the local passions, and the blind 
democratic instinct of the country to aid their cause; and 
they assert that the bank-directors form a permanent aristo¬ 
cratic body, whose influence must ultimately be felt in the 
government, and must affect those principles of equality upon 
which society rests in America. 

The contest between the bank and its opponents is only an 
incident in the great struggle which is going on in America 
between the provinces and the central power; be tween the 
spirit of democratic independence, and the spirit of gradation 
and subordination. I do not mean that the enemies of the 
bank are identically the same individuals, who, on other 
points, attack the federal government; but I assert that the 
attacks directed against the bank of the United States origin¬ 
ate in the propensities which militate against the federal gov¬ 
ernment ; and that the very numerous opponents of tire 
former afford a deplorable symptom of the decreasing support 
of the latter. 

The Union has never displayed so much weakness as in the 
celebrated question of the tariff.* The wars of the French 
revolution and of 1812 had created manufacturing establish¬ 
ments in the north of the Union, by cutting off all free cona- 
munication between America and Europe. When peace was 
concluded, and the channel of intercourse reopened by which 
the produce of Europe was transmitted to the New World, 
the Americans thought lit to establish a system of import du¬ 
ties, for the twofold purpose of protecting their incipient manu¬ 
factures, and of paying'off the amount of the debt contracted 

* See principally for the details of this affair, the legislative docu¬ 
ments, 22d congress, “2d session, No 30. 



AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


417 


during the war. The southern states, which have no manu¬ 
factures to encourage, and which are exclusively agricultural, 
soon complained of this measure. Such were the simple 
facts, and I do not pretend to examine in this place whether 
their complaints were well founded or unjust. 

As early as the year 1820, South Carolina declared, in a 
petition to Congress, that the tariff was “ unconstitutional, 
oppressive, and unjust.’^ And the states of Georgia, \ ir- 
ginia, North Carolina, Alabama, and MLssissippi, subsequent¬ 
ly remonstrated against it with more or less vigor. But Con¬ 
gress, far from lending an ear to these complaints, raised the 
scale of tariff duties in the years 1824 and 1828, and recog¬ 
nized anew the principle on which it was founded. A doc¬ 
trine was then proclaimed, or rather revived, in the south, 
which took the name of nullification. 

I have shown in the proper place that the object of the fe¬ 
deral constitution was not to form a league, but to create a 
national government. The Americans of the United States 
form a sole and undivided people, in all the cases which are 
specified by that constitution; and upon these points the will 
of the nation is expressed, as it is in all constitutional nations, 
by the voice of the majority. When the majority has pro¬ 
nounced its decision, it is the duty of the minority to submit. 
Such is the sound legal doctrine, and the only one which 
agrees with the text of the constitution, and the known inten¬ 
tion of those who framed it. 

The partisans of nullification in the south maintain, on the 
contrary, that the intention of the Americans in uniting was 
not to reduce themselves to the condition of one and the same 
people ; that they meant to constitute a league of independ¬ 
ent states; and that each state, consequently, retains its en¬ 
tire sovereignty, if not de facto, at least dejure ; and has the 
right of putting its own construction upon the laws of con¬ 
gress, and of suspending their execution within the limits of 
its own territory, if they are held to be unconstitutional or 
unjust. 

The entire doctrine of nullification is comprised in a sen¬ 
tence uttered by Vice-President Calhoun, the head of that 
party in the south, before the senate of the United States, in 
the year 1833 : “ The constitution is a compact to which the 
states were parties in their sovereign capacity; now, when¬ 
ever a contract is entered into by parties which acknowledge 
no tribunal above their authority to decide in the last resort, 
each of them has a right to judge for himself in relation to 
the nature, extent, and obligations of the instrument.” It is 




418 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


evident that a similar doctrine destroys the very basis of the 
federal constitution, and brings back all the evils of the old 
confederation, from which the Americans were supposed to 
have had a safe deliverance. 

When South Carolina perceived that Congress turned a deaf 
ear to its remonstrances, it threatened to apply the doctrine 
of nullification to the federal tariff bill. Congress persisted 
in its former system ; and at length the storm broke out. - In 
the course of 1832 the citizens of South Carolina* named a 
national [state] convention, to consult upon the extraordinary 
measures which they were called upon to take; and on the 24th 
November of the same year, this convention promulgated a 
law, under the form of a decree, which annulled the federal 
law of the tariff, forbade the levy of the imposts which that 
law commands, and refused to recognize the appeal which 
might be made to the federal courts of law,]- This decree 
was only to be put into execution in the ensuing month of 
February, and it was intimated, that if Congress modified the 
tariff before that period, South Carolina might be induced to 
proceed no farther with her menaces ; and a vague desire 
was afterward expressed of submitting the question to an ex¬ 
traordinary assembly of all the confederate states. 

In the meantime South Carolina armed her militia, and pre¬ 
pared for war. But congress, which had slighted its suppliant 
subjects, listened to their complaints as soon as they were 
found to have taken up arms.]; A law was passed, by which 

* That is to say, the majority of the people; for the opposite party, 
called the Union party, always formed a very strong and active minor¬ 
ity. Carolina may contain about 47,000 electors; 30,000 were in fa¬ 
vor of nullification, and 17,000 opposed to it. 

t This decree was preceded by a renort of the committee by which 
it was framed, containing the explanation of the motives and object of 
the law. The following passage occurs in it, p. 34 : “When the 
rights res-'rved by the constitution to the different states are deliber¬ 
ately violated, it is the duty and the right of those states to interfere, 
in order to check the progress of the evil, to resist usurpation, and to 
maintain, within their respective limits, those powers and privileges 
which belong to them as independent sovereign states. If they were 
destitute of this right, they would not be sovereign. South Carolina 
declares that she acknowledges no tribunal upon eirth above her au¬ 
thority. She. has indeed entered into a solemn compact of union with 
the other states : but she demands, and will exercise, the right of put¬ 
ting her own construction upon it; and when this compact is violated 
by her sister states, and by the government which they have created, 
she is determined to avail herself of the unquestionable right of judg¬ 
ing what is the extent of the infraction, and what are the measures 
best fitted to obtain justice.” 

f Congress was finally decided to take this step by the conduct of 
the pow'erful state of Virginia, whose legislature offered to serve as a 



I 


f: 


AND WIIAT DANGERS THREATEN IT, 


419 


the tariff duties ^vere to be progressively reduced for ten years, 
until they were brought so low as not to exceed the amount 
of supplies necessary to the government.* Thus congress 
completely abandoned the principle of the tariff; and substi¬ 
tuted a mere fiscal impost for a system of protective duties.f 
The government of the Union, in order to conceal its defeat 
had recourse to an expedient which is very much in vogue 
with feeble governments. It yielded the point de facte, but it 
remained inflexible upon the principles in question ; and while 
congress was altering the tariff law, it passed another bill, by 
which the president was invested with extraordinary powers, 
enabling him to overcome by force a resistance which was 
then no longer to be apprehended. 

But South Carolina did not consent to leave the Union in the 
enjoyment of these scanty trophies of success: the same na¬ 
tional [^tate] convention which annulled the tariff bill, met 
again, and accepted the proffered concession : but at the same 
time it declared its unabated perseverance in the doctrine of 
nullification ; and to prove what it said, it annulled the law 
investing the president with extraordinary powers, although it 
was very certain that the clauses of that law would never be 
carried into effect. 

Almost all the controversies of which I have been speaking 
have taken place under the presidency of General Jackson ; 
and it cannot be denied that in the question of the tariff he 
has supported the claims of the Union with vigor and with skill. 

I am however of opinion that the conduct of the individual 
who now represents the federal government, may be reckoned 
as one of the dangers which threaten its continuance. 

Some persons in Europe have formed an opinion of the pos¬ 
sible influence of General Jackson upon the affairs of his 
country, which appears highly extravagant to those who have 
seen more of the subject. We have been told that General 
Jackson has won sundry battles, that he is an energetic man, 
prone by nature and by habit to the use of force, covetous of 
power, and a despot by taste. All this may perhaps be true ; 
but the inferences which have been drawn from these truths 
are exceedingly erroneous. It has been imagined that General 
Jackson is bent on establishing a dictatorship m America, on 


mediator between the Union and South Carolina. Hitherto the latter 
.st‘te had appeared to be entirely abandoned even by the states which 
had joined her in her remonstrances. 

* I’his law was passed on the 2d March, 1833. 
t This bill was brought in by Mr. Clay, and it passed in four day 
through both houses of Congress, by an immense majority. 





420 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


introducing a military spirit, and on giving a degree of influ¬ 
ence to the central authority which cannot but b^e dangerous 
to provincial liberties. But in America, the time for similar 
undertakings, and the age for men of this kind, is not yet 
come; if General Jackson had entertained a hope of exe rcising 
his authority in this manner, he would infallibly have forfeited 
, his political station, and compromised his life ; accordingly he 
[has not been so imprudent as to make any such attempt. 

Far from wishing to extend the federal power, the president 
belongs to the party which is desirous of limiting that power 
to the bare and precise letter of the constitution, and which 
never puts a construction upon that act, favorable to the go¬ 
vernment of the Union ; far from standing forth as ' he cham¬ 
pion of centralization. General Jackson is the agent of all the 
jealousies of the states; and he was placed in the lofty sta¬ 
tion he occupies, by the passions of the people which are most 
opposed to the central government. It is by perpetually flat¬ 
tering these passions, that he maintains his station and his 
popularity. General Jackson is the slave of the majority: he 
yields to its wishes, its propensities, and its demands ; say 
rather, that he anticipates and forestalls them. 

Whenever the governments of the states come into collision 
with that of the Union, the president is generally the first to* 
question his own rights: he almost always outstrips the legisla¬ 
ture; and when the extent of the federal power iscontrovertedy 
he takes part, as it were, against himself; he conceals his- 
official interests, and extinguishes his own natural inclinations. 
Not indeed that he is naturally weaker hostile to the Union; 
for when the majority decided against the claims of the par¬ 
tisans of nullification, he put himself at its head, asserted the 
doctrines which the nation held, distinctly and energetically, 
and was the first to recommend forcible measures ; but Gene¬ 
ral Jackson appears to me, if I may use the American ex¬ 
pressions, to be a federalist by taste, and a republican by 
calculation. 

General Jackson stoops to gain the favor of the majority; 
but when he feels that his popularity is secure, he overthrows 
all obstacles in the pursuit of the objects which the commu¬ 
nity approves, or of those which it does not look upon with a 
jealous eye. He is supported by a power with which his 
predecessors were unacquainted ; and he tramples on his per¬ 
sonal enemies wherever they cross his path, with a facility 
which no former president ever enjoyed ; he takes upon him¬ 
self the responsibility of measures which no one, before him, 
would have ventured to attempt ; he even treats the national 



AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT< 


421 


representatives with disdain approaching to insult ; he puts 
his veto upon the laws of congress, and frequently neglects to 
reply to that powerful body. He is a favorite who sometimes 
treats his master roughly. The power of General Jackson 
perpetually increases ; but that of the President declines :• in 
his hands the federal government is strong, but it will pass 
enfeebled into the hands of his successor. 

lam strangely mistaken if the federal government of the 
United States bo not constantly losing strength, retiring grad¬ 
ually from public affairs, and narrowing its circle of action 
more and more. It is naturally feeble,-but it now abandons 
even its pretensions to strength. On the other hand, I thought 
that I remarked a more lively sense of independence, and a 
more decided attachment to provincial government, in the 
states. The Union is to subsist, but to subsist as a shadow ; 
it is to be strong in certain cases, and weak in all others ; in 
time of warfare, it is to be able to concentrate all the forces 
of the nation and all the resources of the country in its hands ; 
and in time of peace its existence is to be scarcely percf pti- 
ble : as if this alternate debility and vigor were natural or 
possible. 

I do not foresee anything for the present which may be able 
to check this general impulse of public opinion: the causes 
in which it originated do not cease to operate with the same 
effect. The change will therefore go on, and it may be pre¬ 
dicted that, unless some extraordinary event occurs, the 
government of the Union will grow weaker and weaker 
every day. 

I think, however, that the period is still remote, at which 
the federal power will be entirely extinguished by its inability 
to protect itself and to maintain peace in the country. The 
Union is sanctioned by the manners and desires of the people; 
its results are palpable, its benefits visible. When it is per¬ 
ceived that the weakness of the federal government compro¬ 
mises the existence of the Union, I do not doubt that a reaction 
will take place with a view to increase its strength. 

The government of the United States is, of all the federal 
governments which have hitherto been established, the one 
which is most naturally destined to act. As long as it is only 
indirectly assailed by the interpretation of its laws, and as 
long as its substance is not seriously altered, a change of 
opinion, an internal crisis, or a war, may restore all the vigor 
which it requires. The point which I have been most anxious 
to put in a clear light is simply this ; many people, especially 
in France, imagine that a change of opinion is going on in the 


422 DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 

United States, which is favorable to a centralization of pow'er 
in the hands of the president and the congress. I hold that a 
contrary tendency may be distinctly observed. So far is the 
federal government from acquiring strength, and from threat¬ 
ening the sovereignty of the states, as it grows older, that 1 
maintain it to be growing weaker and weaker, and that the 
sovereignty of the Union alone is in danger. Such are the 
facts which the present time discloses. The future conceals 
the final result of this tendency, and the events which may 
check, retard, or accelerate, the changes I have described ; 
but I do not affect to be able to remove the veil which hides 
them from our sight. 


OF THE REPUBLICAN INSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND 
WHAT THEIR CHANCES OF DURATION ARE.' 

% 

The Union is Accidental.—The Republican Institutions have more 
prospect of Permanence.—A Republic for the Present the Natural 
State of the Anglo-Americans.—Reason of this.—Tn order to destroy 
it, all Laws must be changed at the same time, and a great alteration 
take place in Manners —Difficulties experienced by the Americans 
in creating an Aristocracy. 

The dismemberment of the Union, by the introduction of war 
into the heart of those states which are now confederate, with 
standing armies, a dictatorship, and a heavy taxation, might 
eventually compromise the fate of the republican institutions. 
But we ought not to confound the future prospects of the re¬ 
public with those of the Union. The Union is an accident, 
which will last only so long as circumstances are favorable 
to its existence ; but a republican form of government seems 
to me to be the natural state of the Americans ; which nothing 
but the continued action of hostile causes, always acting in 
the same direction, could change into a monarchy. The Union 
exists principally in the law which formed it ; one revolution, 
one change in public opinion, might destroy it for ever ; but 
the republic has a much deeper foundation to rest upon. 

What is understood by republican government in the 
United States, is the slow and quiet action of society upon 
itself. It is a regular state of things really founded upon 
the enlightened will of the people. It is a conciliatory gov¬ 
ernment under which resolutions are allowed time to ripen ; 
and in which they are deliberately discussed, and executed 
with mature judgment. The republicans in the United States 






AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


423 


set a high value upon morality, respect religious belief, and 
acknowledge the existence of rights. They profess to think 
that a people ought to be moral, religious, and temperate, 
in proportion as it is free. What is called the republic in the 
United States, is the tranquil rule of the majority, which, 
after having had time to examine itself, and to give proof of 
its existence, is the common source of all the powers of the 
state. But the power of the majority is not of itself unlimit, 
ed. In the moral world humanity, justice, and reason, enjoy 
an undisputed supremacy ; in the political world vested rights 
are treated with no less deference. The majority recognizes 
these two barriers ; and if it now and then overstep them, it 
is because, like individuals, it has passions, and like them, it 
is prone to do what is wrong, while it discerns what is right. 

But the demagogues of Europe have made strange dis¬ 
coveries. A republic is not, according to them, the rule of 
the majority, as has hitherto been taught, but the rule of those 
who are strenuous partisans of the majority. It is not the 
people who preponderates in this kind of government, but 
those who best know what is for the good of the people. A 
happy distinction, which allows men to act in the name of 
nations without consulting them, and to claim their gratitude 
while their rights are spurned. A republican government, 
moreover, is the only one which claims the right of doing 
whatever it chooses, and despising what men have hitherto re- 
spected, from the highest moral obligations to the vulgar rules 
of common sense. It had been supposed, until our time, that 
despotism was odious, under whatever form it appeared. But 
it is a discovery of modern days that there are such things 
as legitimate tyranny and holy injustice, provided they are 
exercised in the name of the people. 

The ideas which the Americans have adopted respecting 
the republican form of government, render it easy for them 
to live under it, and ensure its duration. If, in their coun- 
try, this form be often practically bad, at least it is theoreti¬ 
cally good ; and, in the end, the people always acts in con¬ 
formity with it. 

It was impossible, at the foundation of the states, and it ^ 
would still be difficult, to establish a central administration in 
America. The inhabitants are dispersed over too great a 
space, and separated by too many natural obstacles, for one 
man to undertake to direct the details of their existence. 
America is therefore pre-eminently the country of provincial 
and municipal government. To this cause, which was plainly 





424 DURAT^Ox^’ OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 

felt by all the Eluropeans of the New World, the Anglo- 
Americans added several others peculiar to themselves. 

At the time of the settlement of the North American colo¬ 
nies, municipal liberty had already penetrated into the laws 
as well as the manners of the English, and the emigrants 
adopted it, not only as a necessary thing, but as a benefit 
which they knew how to appreciate. We have already 
seen the manner in which the colonies were founded : every 
province, and almost every district, was peopled separately 
by men who were strangers to each other, or who associated 
with very different purposes. The English settlers in the 
United States, therefore, early perceived that they were di¬ 
vided into a great number of small and distinct communities 
which belonged to no common centre ; and that it was need¬ 
ful for each of these little communities to take care of its own 
affairs, since there did not appear to be any central authority 
which was naturally bound and easily enabled to provide for 
them. Thus, the nature of the country, the manner in which 
the British colonies were founded, the habits of the first emi¬ 
grants, in short everything, united to promote, in an extra¬ 
ordinary degree, municipal and provincial liberties. 

In the United States, therefore, the mass of the institutions 
of the country is essentially republican; and in order per¬ 
manently to destroy the laws which form the basis of the re¬ 
public, it would be necessary to abolish all the laws at once. 
At the present day, it would be even more difficult for a party 
to succeed in founding a monarchy in the United States, than 
for a set of men to proclaim that France should hencefor¬ 
ward be a republic. Royalty would not find a system of 
legislation prepared for it beforehand ; and a monarchy would 
then exist, really surrounded by republican institutions. The 
monarchical principle would likewise have great difficulty in 
penetrating into the manners of the Americans. 

In the United States, the sovereignty of the people is not 
an isolated doctrine bearing no relation to the prevailing man¬ 
ners and ideas of the people : it may, on the contrary, be 
regarded as the last link of a chain of opinions which binds 
the whole Anglo-American world. That Providence has 
given to every human being the degree of reason necessary 
to direct himself in the affairs which interest him exclusive¬ 
ly ; such is the grand maxim upon which civil and political 
society rests in the United States. The father of a family 
applies it to his children ; the master to his servants ; the 
township to its officers ; the province to its townships; the 
state to the provinces; the Union to the states; and when 


AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


425 


extended to the nation, it becomes the doctrine of the sove¬ 
reignty of the people. 

Thus, in the United States, the fundamental principle of 
the republic is the same which governs the greater part of 
human actions ; republican notions insinuate themselves into 
all the ideas, opinions, and habits of the Americans, while 
they are formally recognized by the legislation : and before 
this legislation can be altered, the whole community must 
undergo very serious changes. In the United States, even 
the religion of most of the citizens is republican, since it 
submits the truths of the other world to private judgment: 
as in politics the care of its temporal interests is abandoned 
to the good sense of the people. Thus every man is allowed 
freely to take that road which he thinks will lead him to hea¬ 
ven ; just as the law permits every citizen to have the right/' 
of choosing his government. 

It is evident that nothing but a long series of events, all 
having the same tendency, can substitute for this combination 
of laws, opinions, and manners, a mass of opposite opinions, 
manners and laws. 

If republican principles are to perish in America, they 
can only yield after a laborious social process, often inter¬ 
rupted, and as often resumed ; they will have many apparent 
revivals, and will not become totally extinct until an entirely 
new people shall have succeeded to that which now exists. 
Now, it must be admitted that there is no symptom or pre¬ 
sage of the approach of such a revolution. There is nothing 
more striking to a person newly arrived in the United States, 
than the kind of tumultuous agitation in which he finds po¬ 
litical society. The laws are incessantly changing, and at 
first sight it seems impossible that a people so variable in its 
desires should avoid adopting, within a short space of time, 
a completely new form of government. Such apprehensions 
are, however, premature ; the instability which affects politi¬ 
cal institutions is of two kinds,"which ought not to be con¬ 
founded : the first, which modifies secondary laws, is not in¬ 
compatible with a very settle d_ state of society ; the other 
shakes the very foundations of the constitution, and attacks 
the fundamental principles of legislation ; this species of 
instability is always followed by troubles and revolutions, and 
the nation which suffers under it, is in a state of violent ' 
transition. 

Experience shows that these two kinds of legislative insta¬ 
bility have no necessary connexion; for they have been 
found united or separate, according to times and circum- 
37* 



428 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


stances. The first is common in the United States, but not 
the second: the Americans often change their laws, but the 
foundation of the constitution is respected. 

In our days the republican principle rules in America, as 
the monarchical principle did in France under Louis XIV". 
The French of that period were not only friends of the mon¬ 
archy, but they thought it impossible to put anything in its 
place ; they received it as we receive the rays of the sun 
and the return of the seasons. Among them the royal power 
had neither advocates nor opponents. In like manner does 
the republican government exist in America, without conten¬ 
tion or opposition ; without proofs and arguments, by a tacit 
agreement, a sort of consensus universalis. It is, however, 
my opinion, that, by changing their administrative forms as 
often as they do, the inhabitants of the United States compro¬ 
mise the future stability of their government. 

It may be apprehended that men, perpetually thwarted in 
their designs by the mutability of legislation, will learn to 
look upon republican institutions as an inconvenient form of 
society ; the evil resulting from the instability of the second¬ 
ary enactments, might then raise a doubt as to the nature of 
the fundamental principles of the constitution, and indirectly 
bring about a revolution ; but this epoch is still very remote. 

[Tt has been objected by an American review, that our author is 
mistaken in charging our laws with instability, and in answer to the 
charge, the permanence of our fundamental political institutions has 
been contrasted with tlie revolutions in France. But the objection 
proceeds upon a mistake of the author's meaning, which at this page 
is very clearly expressed. He refers to the instability which modifies 
secondary laws^ and not to that which shakes the foundations of the 
constitution. The distinction is equally sound and philosophic, and 
those in the least acquainted with the history of our legislation, must 
bear witness to the truth of the author’s remarks. The frequent re¬ 
visions of the statutes of the states rendered necessary by the multi¬ 
tude, variety, and often the contradiction of the enactments, furnish 
abundant evidence of this instability .—American Editor.'\ 

It may, however, be foreseen, even now, that when the 
Americans lose their republican institutions, they will speed¬ 
ily arrive at a despotic government, without a long interval of 
limited monarchy. Montesquieu remarked, that nothing is 
more absolute than the authority of a prince who immediately 
succeeds a republic, since the powers which had fearlessly 
been intrusted to an elected magistrate are then transferred 
to an hereditary sovereign. This is true in general, but it is 
more peculiarly applicable to a democratic republic. In the 
United States, the magistrates are not elected by a particular 


AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


427 


class of citizens, but by the majority of the nation ; they are 
the immediate representatives of the passions of the multi¬ 
tude ; and as they are wholly dependent upon its pleasure, 
they excite neither hatred nor fear : hence, as I have already 
shown, very little care has been taken to limit their influence, 
and they are left in possession of a vast deal of arbitrary 
power. This state of things has engendered habits which 
would outlive itself; the American magistrate would retain 
his power, but he would cease to be responsible for the exer¬ 
cise of it; and it is impossible to say what bounds could then 
be set to tyranny. 

Some of our European politicians expect to see an aristo¬ 
cracy arise in America, and they already predict the exact 
period at which it will be able to assume the reins of govern¬ 
ment. I have previously observed, and I repeat my asser¬ 
tion, that the present tendency of American society appears 
to me to become more and more democratic. Nevertheless, 
I do not assert that the Americans will not, at some future 
time, restrict the circle of political rights in their country, or 
confiscate those rights to the advantage of a single individual; 
but I cannot imagine that they will ever bestow the exclusive 
exercise of them upon a privileged class of citizens, or, in 
other words, that they will ever found an aristocracy. 

An aristocratic body is composed of a certain number of 
citizens, who, without being very far removed from the mass 
of the people, are, nevertheless, permanently stationed above 
it: a body which it is easy to touch, and difficult to strike ; 
with which the people are in daily contact, but with which 
they can never combine. Nothing can be imagined more 
contrary to nature and to the secret propensities of the human 
heart, than a subjection of this kind ; and men, who are.left 
to follow their own bent, will always prefer the arbitrary 
power of a king to the regular administration of an aristo¬ 
cracy. Aristocratic institutions cannot subsist without laying 
down the inequality of men as a fundamental principle, as a 
part and parcel of the legislation, affecting the condition of 
the human family as much as it affects that of society ; but 
these things are so repugnant to natural equity that they can 
only be extorted from men by constraint. - 

I do not think a single people can be quoted, since human 
society began to exist, which has, by its own free will and by 
its own exertions, created an aristocracy within its own bo¬ 
som. All the aristocracies of the middle ages were founded 
by military conquest: the conqueror was the noble, the van¬ 
quished became the serf. Inequality was then imposed by 




428 DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 

force; and after it had been introduced into the manners of 
the country, it maintained its own authority, and was sanc¬ 
tioned by the legislation. Communities have existed which 
were aristocratic from their earliest origin, owing to circum¬ 
stances anterior to that event, and which became more demo¬ 
cratic in each succeeding age. Such was the destiny of the 
Romans, and of the Barbarians after them. But a people, 
having taken its rise 'in civilisation and democracy, which 
should gradually establish an inequality of conditions until it 
arrived at inviolable privileges and exclusive castes, would 
be a novelty in the world ; and nothing intimates that Ame¬ 
rica is likely to furnish so singular an example. 


REFLECTIONS ON THE CAUSES OF THE COMMERCIAL PROSPE¬ 
RITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

The Americans destined by Nature to be a great maritime People.— 
Extent of their Coasts.—Depth of their Ports.—Size of their Riv¬ 
ers,—The commercial Superiority of the Anglo-Saxons less attribu¬ 
table, however, to physical Circumstances than to moral and intellec¬ 
tual Causes —Reason of this Opinion. —Future Destiny of the Anglo- 
Americans as a commercial Nation.—The Dissolution of the Union 
would not check the maritime Vigor of the States.—Reason of this. 
—Anglo-Americans will naturally supply the Wants of the inhabit¬ 
ants of South America.—They will become, like the English, the 
Factors of a great portion of the World. 

The coast of the United States, from the bay of Fundy to the 
Sabine river in the gulf of Mexico, is more than two thou¬ 
sand miles in extent. These shores form an unbroken line, 
and they are all subject to the same government. No nation 
in the world possesses vaster, deeper, or more secure ports 
for shipping than the Americans. 

The inhabitants of the United States constitute a great 
civilized people, which fortune has placed in the midst of an 
uncultivated country, at a distance of three thousand miles 
from the central point of civilisation. America consequently 
stands in daily need of European trade. The Americans 
will, no doubt, ultimately succeed in producing or manufac¬ 
turing at home most of the articles which they require ; but 
the two continents can never be independent of each other, so 
numerous are the natural ties which exist between their 
wants, their ideas, their habits, and their manners. 

The Union produces peculiar commodities which are now 
become necessary to us, but which cannot be cultivated, or 



AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


429 


can only be raised at an enormous expense, upon the soil of 
Europe. The Americans only consume a small portion of 
this produce, and they are willing to sell us the rest. Europe 
is the refore the market of America, as America is the market 
of Europe ; and maritime commerce is no less necessary to 
enable the inhabitants of the United States to transport their 
raw materials to the ports of Europe, than it is to enable us 
to supply them with our manufactured produce. The United 
Stales were therefore necessarily reduced to the alternative 
of increasing the business of other maritime nations to a 
great extent, if they had themselves declined to enter into 
commerce, as the Spaniards of Mexico have hitherto done; 
or, in the second place, of becoming one of the first trading 
powers of the globe. 

The Anglo-Americans have always displayed a very de¬ 
cided taste for the sea. The declaration of independence 
broke the commercial restrictions which united them to Eng¬ 
land, and gave a fresh and powerful stimulus to their mari¬ 
time genius. Ever since that time, the shipping of the Union 
has increased in almost the same rapid proportion as the num¬ 
ber of its inhabitants. The Americans themselves now trans¬ 
port to their own shores nine-tenths of the European produce 
which they consume.* And they also bring three-quarters 
of the exports of the New World to the European consumer.f 
The ships of the United States fill the docks of Havre and of 
Liverpool ; while the number of English and French vessels 
which are to be seen at New York is comparatively small.f 

Thus, not only does the American merchant face,competi- 

* The total value of goods imported during the year which ended 
on the 30th September, 1332, was 101,129,206 dollars. The value of 
the cargoes of foreign vessels did not amount to 10,731,039 dollars, 
cr about one-tenth of the entire sum. 

t The value of goods exported during the same year amounted to 
87,176,943 dollars ; the value of goods exported by foreign vessels 
amounted to 21,036,183 dollars, or about one quarter of the whole 
sum. (Williams’s Register, 1S33, p. 398.) 

X The tonnage of the vessels which entered all the ports of the 
Union in the years 1829, 1830, and 1831, amounted to 3,307,719 tons, 
of which 544,571 tons were foreign vessels; they stood therefore to 
the American vessels in a ratio of about 16 to 100. (National Calen¬ 
dar, 1833, p. 304.) The tonnage of the English vessels which en¬ 
tered the ports of London, Liverpool and Hull, in the years 1820, 
1826, and 1831, amounted to 443,800 tons. The foreign vessels which 
entered the same ports during the same years, amounted to 159,431 
tons. The ratio between them was therefore about 36 to 100. (Com¬ 
panion to the Almanac, 1834, p. 169.) In the year 1832 the ratio be¬ 
tween the foreign and British ships which entered the ports of Great 
Britain was 29 to 100. 





430 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


tion in his own country, but he even supports that of foreign 
nations in their own ports with success. This is readily ex¬ 
plained by the fact that the vessels of the United States can 
cross the seas at a cheaper rate than any other vessels in the 
world. As long as the mercantile shipping of the United 
States preserves this superiority, it will not only retain what 
it has acquired, but it will constantly increase in pros¬ 
perity. 

It is difficult to say for what reason the Americans can 
trade at a lower rate than other nations; and one is at first 
led to attribute this circumstance to the physical or natural 
advantages which are within their reach ; but this supposition 
is erroneous. The American vessels cost almost as much to 
build as our own ;* they are not better built, an<l they gene¬ 
rally last for a shorter time. The pay of the American sailor 
is more considerable than the pay on board European ships ; 
which is proved by the great number of Europeans who arc 
to be met with in the merchant-vessels of the United States. 
But I am of opinion that the true cause of their superiority 
must not be sought for in physical advantages, but that it is 
wholly attributable to their moral and intellectual qualities. 

The following comparison will illustrate my meaning. 
During the campaigns of the revolution the French intro¬ 
duced a new system of tactics into the art of war, which per¬ 
plexed the oldest generals, and very nearly destroyed the 
most ancient monarchies in Europe. They undertook (what 
had never been before attempted) to make shift without a 
number of things which had always been held to be indispen¬ 
sable in warfare ; they required novel exertions on the part 
of their troops, which no civilized nations had ever thought 
of; they achieved great actions in an incredibly short space 
of time: and they risked human life without hesitation, to 
obtain the object in view. The French had less money and 
fewer men than their enemies ; their resources were infinitely 
inferior; nevertheless they were constantly victorious, until 
their adversaries chose to imitate their example. 

The Americans have introduced a similar system into their 
commercial speculations; and they do for cheapness what 
the French did for conquest. The European sailor navigates 
with prudence; he only sets sail when the weather is favor¬ 
able ; if an unforeseen accident befalls him, he puts into 
port; at night he furls a portion of his canvass ; and when 
the whitening billows intimate the vicinity of land, he checks 

* Materials are, generally speaking, less expensive in America than 
in Europe, but the price of labor is much higher. 


AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


431 


his way, and takes an observation of the sun. But the 
American -neglects these precautions and braves these dan¬ 
gers. He weighs anchor in the midst of tempestuous gales; 
by night and by day he spreads his sheets to the wind ; he 
repairs as he goes along such damage as his vessel may have 
sustained from the storm; and when he at last approaches 
the term of his voyage, he darts onward to the shore as if he 
already descried a port. The Americans are often ship, 
wrecked, but no trader crosses the seas so rapidly. And as 
they perform the same distance in a shorter time, they can 
perform it at a cheaper rate. 

The European touches several times at different ports in 
the course of a long voyage ; he loses a good deal of precious 
time in making the harbor, or in waiting for a favorable wind 
to leave it; and he pays daily dues to be allowed to remain 
there. The American starts from Bosto'n to go to purchase 
tea in China: he arrives at Canton, stays there a few days 
and then returns. In less than two years he has sailed as 
far as the entire circumference of the globe, and he has seen 
land but once. It is true that during a voyage of eight or 
ten months he has drunk brackish water, and lived upon salt 
meat; that he has been in a continual contest with the sea, 
with disease, and with the tedium of monotony; but, upon 
his return, he can sell a pound of his tea for a halfpenny less 
than the English merchant, and his purpose is accomplished. 

I cannot better explain my meaning than by saying that 
the Americans affect a sort of heroism in their manner of 
trading. But the European merchant will always find it 
very difficult to imitate his American competitor, who, in 
adopting the system which I have just described, follows not 
only a calculation of his gain^ but an impulse of his nature. 

The inhabitants of the United States are subject to all the 
wants and all the desires which result from an advanced 
stage of civilisation; but as they are not surrounded by a 
community admirably adapted, like that of Europe, to satisfy 
their wants, they are often obliged to procure for themselves 
the various articles which education and liabit have rendered 
necessaries. In America it sometimes happens that the same 
individual tills his field, builds his dwelling, contrives his 
tools, makes his shoes, and weaves the coarse stuff of which 
his dress is composed. This circumstance is prejudicial to 
the excellence of the wwk: but it powerfully contributes to 
awaken the intelligence of the workman. Nothing tends to 
materialise man, and to deprive his work of the faintest trace 
of mind, more than extreme division of labor. In a country 




432 DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 

like America, where men devoted to special occupations are 
rare, a long apprenticeship cannot be required from any one 
who embraces a profession. The Americans therefore 
change their means of gaining a livelihood very readily ; and 
they suit their occupations to the exigencies of the moment, 
in the manner most profitable to themselves. Men are to be 
met with who have successively been barristers, farmers, 
merchants, ministers of the gospel, and physicians. If the 
American be less perfect in each craft than the European, at 
least there is scarcely any trade with which he is utterly un¬ 
acquainted. His capacity is more general, and the circle of 
his intelligence is enlarged. 

The inliabitants of the United States are never fettered by 
the axioms of their profession; they escape from all the pre¬ 
judices of their present station; they are not more attached 
to one line of operation than to another; they are not more 
prone to employ an old method than a new one; they have 
no rooted habits, and they easily shake off the influence which 
the habits of other nations might exercise upon their 
minds, from a conviction that their country is unlike any 
other, and that its situation is without a precedent in the 
world. America is a land of wonders, in which every¬ 
thing is in constant motion, and every movement seems an 
improvement. The idea of novelty is there indissolubly 
connected with the idea of melioration. No natural boundary 
seems to be set to the eflbrts of man ; and what is not yet 
done is only what he has not yet attempted to do. 

This perpetual change which goes on in the United States, 
these frequent vicissitudes of fortune, accompanied by such 
unforeseen fluctuations in private and in public wealth, serve 
to keep the minds of the citizens in a perpetual state of fever¬ 
ish agitation, which admirably invigorates their exertions, 
and keeps them in a state of excitement above the ordinary 
level of mankind. The whole life of an American is passed 
like a game of chance, a revolutionary crisis or a battle. 
As the same causes are continually in operation throughout 
the country, they ultimately impart an irresistible impulse to 
the national character. The American, taken as a chance 
specimen of his countrymen, must then be a man of singular 
warmth in his desires, enterprising, fond of adventure, and 
above all of innovation. The same bent is manifest in all 
that he does; he introduces it into his political laws, his re¬ 
ligious doctrines, his theories of social economy, and his do¬ 
mestic occupations; he bears it with him in the depth of the 
backwoods, as well as in the business of the city. It is the 



AND WHAT DANtJEIiS THREATEN IT. 


433 


same passion, applied to maritime commerce, which makes 
him the cheapest and the quickest trader in the world. 

As long as the sailors of the United States retain these in¬ 
spiriting advantages, and the practical superiority which they 
derive from them, they will not only continue to supply the 
wants of the producers and consumers of their own country, 
but they will tend more and more to become, like the Eng¬ 
lish, the factors of all other peoples.* This prediction has 
already begun to be realized ; we perceive that the Anrieri- 
can traders are introducing themselves as intermediate agents 
in the commerce of several European nations ;f and America 
will offer a still wider field to their enterprise. 

The great colonies which were founded in South America 
by the Spaniards and the Portuguese have since become em¬ 
pires. Civil war and oppression now lay waste those exten¬ 
sive regions- Population does not increase, and the thinly- 
scattered inhabitants are too much absorbed in the cares of 
self-defence even to attempt any melioration of their condi¬ 
tion. Such, however, will not alw'ays be the case- Europe 
has succeeded by her own efforts in piercing the gloom of 
the middle ages ; South America has the same Christian 
laws and Christian manners as we have ; she contains all the 
germs of civilisation which have grown amid the nations of 
Europe or their offsets, added to the advantages to be derived 
from our example ; why then should she always remain un¬ 
civilized ? It is clear that the question is simply one of time ; 
at some future period, which may be more or less remote, 
the inhabitants of South America will constitute flourishing 
and enlightened nations. 

But when the Spaniards and Portuguese of South America 
begin to feel the wants common to all civilized nations, they 
will still be unable to satisfy those wants for themselves; as 
the youngest children of civilisation, they must perforce ad¬ 
mit the superiority of their elder brethren. They will be 
agriculturists long before they succeed in manufactures or 
commerce, and they will require the mediation of strangers 

* It must not be supposed that English vessels are exclusively em- 
ploved in transporting foreign produce into England, or British pro¬ 
duce to foreign countries: at the present day the merchant shipping 
of England may be regarded in the light of a vast system of public con¬ 
veyances ready to serve all the producers of the world, and to open 
communications between all peoples. The maritime genius of the 
Americans prompts them to enter into competition with the English. 

t Part of the commerce of the Mediterranean is already carried on 
by American vessels. 


38 


434 


DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 


to exchange their produce beyond seas for those articles for 
which a demand will begin to be felt. ^ 

It is unquestionable that the Americans of the north will 
one day supply the wants of the Americans of the south. 
Nature has placed them in contiguity ; and has furnished the 
former with every means of knowing and appreciating those 
demands, of establishing a permanent connexion with those 
states, and of gradually filling their markets. The merchant 
of the United States could only forfeit these natural advanta- 
ges if he were very inferior to the merchant of Europe; to 
whom he is, on the contrary, superior in several respects. 
The Americans of the United States already exercise a very 
considerable moral influence upon all the people of the New 
World. They are the source of intelligence, and all the na¬ 
tions which inhabit the same continent are already accustom¬ 
ed to consider them as the most enlightened, the most power¬ 
ful, and the most wealthy members of the great American 
family. All eyes are therefore turned toward the Union; 
and the states of which that body is composed are the models 
which the other communities try to imitate to the best of their 
power: it is from the United States that they borrow their 
political principles and their laws. 

The Americans of the United States stand in precisely the 
same position with regard to the peoples of South America as 
their fathers, the English, occupy with regard to the Italians, 
the Spaniards, the Portuguese, and all those nations of Europe, 
which receive their articles of daily consumption from Eng¬ 
land, because they are less advanced in civilisation and trade. 
England is at this time the natural emporium of almost all 
the nations which are within its reach ; the American Union 
will perform the same part in the other hemisphere; and 
every community which is founded, or which prospers in the 
New World, is founded and prospers to the advantage of the 
Anglo-Americans. 

If the Union were to be dissolved, the commerce of the 
states which now compose it, would undoubtedly be checked 
for a time; but this consequence would be less perceptible 
than is generally supposed. It is evident that whatever may 
happen, the commercial states will remain united. They are 
all contiguous to each other ; they have identically the same 
opinions, interests, and manners, and they are alone cornpe- 
tent to form a very great maritime power. Even if the south 
of the Union were to become independent of the north, it 
would still require the service of those states. I have alrea¬ 
dy observed that the south is not a commercial country, and 


AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT. 


435 


nothing intimates that it is likely to become so. The Ame¬ 
ricans of the south of the United States will therefore be 
obliged, for a long time to come, to have recourse to strangers 
to export their produce, and to supply them with the commo¬ 
dities which are requisite to satisfy their wants. But the 
northern states are undoubtedly able to act as their interme¬ 
diate agents cheaper than any other merchants. They will 
therefore retain that employment, for cheapness is < the sove¬ 
reign law of commerce. National claims and national pre¬ 
judices cannot resist the influence of cheapness. Nothing 
can be more virulent than the hatred which exists between the 
Americans of the United States and the English. But, not¬ 
withstanding these inimical feelings, the Americans derive 
the greater part of their manufactured commodities from Eng¬ 
land, because England supplies them at a cheaper rate than 
any other nation. Thus the increasing prosperity of America 
turns, notwithstanding the grudges of the Americans, to the 
advantage of British manufactures. 

Reason shows and experience proves that no commercial 
prosperity can be durable if it cannot be united, in case of 
need, to naval force. This truth is as well understood in the 
United Slates as it can be anywhere else: the Americans are 
already able to make their flag respected : in a few years they 
will be able to make it feared. I am convinced that the dis¬ 
memberment of the Union would not have the effect of dimin¬ 
ishing the naval power of the Americans, but that it would 
powerfully contribute to increase it. At the present 
time the commercial states are connected with others which 
have not the same interests, and which frequently yield an 
unwilling consent to the increase of a maritime power by 
which they are only indirectly benefited. If, on the contrary, 
the commercial states of the Union formed one independent 
nation, commerce would become the foremost of their na¬ 
tional interests; they would consequently be willing to 
make very great sacrifices to protect their shipping, and 
nothing would prevent them from pursuing their designs upon 
this point. 

Nations, as well as men, almost always betray the most 
prominent features of their future destiny in their earliest 
years. When I contemplate the ardor with which the Anglo- 
Americans prosecute commercial enterprise, the advantages 
which befriend them, and the success of their undertakings, 
I cannot refrain from believing that they will one day become 
the first maritime power of the globe. They are born to rule 
ihe seas, as the Romans were to conquer the world. 


436 


CONCLUSION. 


CONCLUSION. 

I HAVE now nearly reached the close of my inquiry . 
hitherto, in speaking of the future destiny of the United 
States, I have endeavored to divide rny subject into distinct 
portions, in order to study each of them with more attention. 
My present object is to embrace the whole from one single 
point; the remarks I shall make will be less'detailed, but 
they will be more sure. I shall perceive each object less dis¬ 
tinctly, but I shall descry the principal facts with more cer¬ 
tainty. A traveller, who has just left the walls of an im¬ 
mense city, climbs the neighboring hill ; as he goes farther 
off, he loses sight of the men whom he has so recently quitted ; 
their dwellings are confused in a dense mass; he can no 
longer distinguish the public squares," and he can scarcely 
trace out the great thoroughfares; but his eye has less diffi¬ 
culty in following the boundaries of the city, and for the first 
time he sees the shape of the vast whole. Such is the future 
destiny of the British race in North America to my eye; the 
details of the stupendous picture are, overhung with shade, 
but I conceive a clear idea of the entire subject. 

The territory now occupied or possessed by the United 
States of America, forms about one-twentieth part of the ha¬ 
bitable earth. But extensive as these confines are, it must 
not be supposed that the Anglo-American race will al¬ 
ways remain within them ; indeed, it has already far over¬ 
stepped them. 

There was once a time at which we also might have creat¬ 
ed a great French nation in the American wilds, to counter¬ 
balance the influence of the English upon the destinies of the 
New World. France formerly possessed a territory in 
North America, scarcely less extensive than the whole of 
Europe. The three greatest rivers of that continent then 
flowed within her dominions. The Indian tribes which dwelt 
between the mouth of the St. Lawrence and the delta of the 
Mississippi were unaccustomed to any tongue but ours ; and 
all the European settlements scattered over that immense 
region recalled the traditions of our country. Louisburg, 
Montmorency, Duquesne, Saint-Louis, Vincennes, New Or¬ 
leans (for such were the names they bore), are words dear 
to France and familiar to our ears. 

But a concourse of circumstances, which it would be tedi- 


CONCLUSION. 


437 


ous to enumerate,* have deprived us of this magnificent in¬ 
heritance. Wherever the French settlers were numerically 
weak and partially established, they have disappeared; those 
wlio remain are collected on a small extent of country, and 
are now subject to other laws. The 400,000 French inhabit¬ 
ants of Lower Canada constitute, at the present time, the 
remnant of an old nation lost in the midst of a new people. 
A foreign population is increasing around them unceasingly, 
and on all sides, which already penetrates among the ancient 
masters of the country, predominates in their cities, and cor¬ 
rupts their language. This population is identical with that 
of the United States ; it is therefore with truth that I asserted 
that the British race is not confined within the frontiers of 
the Union, since it already extends to the northeast. 

To the northwest nothing is to be met with but a few in¬ 
significant Russian settlements; but to the southwest, Mexico 
presents a barrier to the Anglo-Americans. Thus, the 
Spaniards and the Anglo-Americans are, properly speaking, 
the only two races which divide the possession of the New 
World. The limits of separation between them have been 
settled by a treaty ; but although the conditions of that treaty 
are exceedingly favorable to the Anglo-Americans, 1 do not 
doubt that they will shortly infringe this arrangement. Vast 
provinces, extending beyond the frontiers of the Union toward 
Mexico, are still destitute of inhabitants. The ni*tives of the 
United States will forestall the rightful occupants of these soli¬ 
tary regions. They will take possession of the &nil, and es¬ 
tablish social institutions, so that when the legal owner arrives 
at length, he will find the wilderness under cultivation, and 
strangers quietly settled in the midst of his inheritance. 

The lands of the New World belong to the first occupant, 
and they are the natural reward of the swiftest pioneer. Even 
the countries which are already peopled will have some diffi¬ 
culty in securing themselves from this invasion, 1 have 
already alluded to what is taking place in the piovince of 
Texas. The inhabitants of the United States are p-'rcetually 
migrating to Texas, where they purchase land ; anti although 
they conform to the laws of the country, they are gradually 
founding the empire' of their own language and their own 

* The foremost of these circumstances is, that nations which are 
accustomed to free institutions and municipal government are bevVr able 
th-in any others to found prosperous colonies. The habit Oi tliinking 
an 1 governing-for oneself is indispensable in a new countr y, where 
success necessarily depends, in a great measure, upon the individual 
exertions of the settlers. 

38* 


433 


CONCLUSION. 


manners. The province of Texas is still part of the Mexi¬ 
can dominions, but it will soon contain no Mexicans: the 
same thing has occurred whenever the Anglo-Americans 
have come into contact with populations of a different origin. 

[The prophetic accuracy of the author, in relation to the present 
actual condition of Texas, exhibits the sound and clear perception with 
which he surveyed our institutions and character .—American Editor.^ 

It cannot be denied that the British race has acquired an 
amazing preponderance over all the other European races in 
the New World; and that it is very superior to them in civi¬ 
lisation, in industry, and in power. As long as it is only sur¬ 
rounded by desert or thinly-peopled countries, as long as it 
encounters no dense populations upon its route, through which 
it cannot work its way, it will assuredly continue to spread. 
T he lines marked out by treaties will not stop it; but it will 
everywhere transgress these imaginary barriers. 

The geographical position of the British race in the New 
World is peculiarly favorable to its rapid increase. Above 
its northern frontiers the icy regions of the pole extend; and 
a few degrees below its southern confines lies the burning 
climate of the equator. The Anglo-Americans are therefore 
placed in the most temperate and habitable zone of the con¬ 
tinent. 

It is generally supposed that the prodigious increase of 
population in the United States is posterior to their declaration 
of independence. But this is an error: the population in- 
creased as rapidly under the colonial system as it does at the 
present day ; that is to say, it doubled in about twenty-two 
years. But this proportion, which is now applied to millions, 
was then applied to thousands, of inhabitants ; and the same 
fact which was scarcely noticeable a century ago, is now evi¬ 
dent to every observer. 

The British subjects in Canada, who are dependent on a 
king, augment and spread almost as rapidly as the British 
settlers of the United States, who live under a republican 
government. During the war of independence, which lasted 
eight years, the population continued to increase without in¬ 
termission in the same ratio. Although powerful Indian na¬ 
tions allied with the English existed, at that time, upon the 
western frontiers, the emigration westward was never check¬ 
ed. While the enemy laid waste the shores of the Atlantic, 
Kentucky, the western parts of Pennsylvania, and the states 
of Vermont and of Maine were filling with inhabitants. Nor 
did the unsettled state of the constitution, which succeede'd 



CO.VCLUSIOX. 


439 


the war, prevent the increase of the population, or stop its pro¬ 
gress across the wilds- Thus, the diiference of laws, the 
various conditions of peace and war, of order and of anarchy, 
have exercised no perceptible influence upon the gradual de¬ 
velopment of the Anglo-Americans. This may be readily 
understood : for the fact is, that no causes are sufficiently ge¬ 
neral to exercise a simultaneous influence over the whole of 
so extensive a territory. One portion of the country always 
offers a sure retreat from the calamities which afflict another 
part; and however great may be the evil, the remedy which 
is at hand is greater still. 

It must not, then, be imagined that the impulse of the Bri¬ 
tish race in the New World can be arrested. The dismem¬ 
berment of the Union, and the hostilities which might ensue, 
the abolition of republican institutions, and the tyrannical 
government which might succeed it, may retard this impulse, 
but they cannot prevent it from ultimately fulfilling the des¬ 
tinies to which that race is reserved. No power upon earth 
can close upon the emigrants that fertile wilderness which 
offers resources to all industry and a refuge from all want. 
Future events, of whatever nature they may be, will not de¬ 
prive the Americans of their climate or of their inland seas, 
of their great rivers or of their exuberant soil. Nor will bad 
laws, revolutions, and anarchy, be able to obliterate that love 
of prosperity and that spirit of enterprise which seem to be 
the distinctive characteristics of their race, or to extinguish 
that knowledge which guides them on their way. 

Thus, in the midst of the uncertain future, one event at 
least is sure. At a period which may be said to be near (for 
we are speaking of the life of a nation), the Anglo-Americans 
will alone cover the immense space contained between the 
polar regions and the tropics, extending from the coasts of the 
Atlantic to the shores of the Pacific ocean. The territory 
which will probably be occupied by the Anglo-Americans at 
some future time, may be computed to equal three-quarters 
of Europe in extent.* The climate of the Union is upon the 
whole preferable to that of Europe, and its natural advanta¬ 
ges are not less great; it is therefore evident that its popula¬ 
tion will at some future time be proportionate to our own. 
Europe, divided as it is between so many different nations, 
and torn as it has been by incessant wars and the barbarous 

* The United States already extend over a territory equal to one 
half of Europe. The area of Europe is 500,000 square leagues, and 
its populatioxi 205,000,000 of inhabitants. (Maltebrun, liv. 114, vol., 
vi., p. 4.) 






440 


CONCLUSION. 


manners of the Middle Ages^ has notwithstanding attained a 
population of 410 inhabitants to the square league.* Wbat 
cause can prevent the United States from having as numerous 
a population in time ? 

Many ages most elapse before the divers offsets of the 
British race in America cease to present the same homoge¬ 
neous characteristics ; and the time cannot be foreseen al 
which a permanent inequality of conditions will be establish¬ 
ed in the New World. Whatever ditierences may arise, 
from peace or from war, from freedom or oppression, from 
prosperity or want, between the destinies of the different des¬ 
cendants of the great Anglo-American family, they will at 
least preserve an analogous social condition, and they will 
hold in common the customs and the opinions to which thaJ 
social condition has given birth. 

In the Middle Ages, the tie of religion was sufficiently pow¬ 
erful to imbue all the dilferent populations of Europe with the 
same civilisation. The British of the New World have a 
thousand other reciprocal ties; and they live at a time when 
the tendency to equality is general among mankind. The 
Middle Ages were a period when everything was broken up ; 
when each people, each province, each city, and each family, 
had a strong tendency to maintain its distinct individuality. 
At the present time an opposite tendency seems to prevail, 
and the nations seem to be advancing to unity. Our means 
of intellectual intercourse unite the most remote parts of the 
earth; and it is impossible for men to" remain strangers to 
each other, or to be ignorant of the events which are taking 
place in any corner of the globe. The consequence is, that 
there is less difference, at the present day, between the Eu¬ 
ropeans and their descendants in the New World, than there 
was between certain towns in the thirteenth century, which 
were only separated by a river. If this tendency to assimi¬ 
lation brings foreign nations closer to each other, it must d 
fort'ori prevent the descendants of the same people from be¬ 
coming aliens to each other. 

The time will therefore come when one hundred and fifty 
millions of men will be living in North America,f equal in 
condition, the progeny of one race, owing their origin to the 
same cause, and preserving the same civilisation, the same 
language, the same religion, the same habits, the same man¬ 
ners, and imbued with the same opinions, propagated under 

* See Maltebrun, liv. 116, vol, vi., p. 92. > 

t This would be a population proj)ortionate to that of Europe, taken 
at a mean rate of 410 inhabitants to the square league. 


CONCLUSION. 


441 


the same forms. The rest is uncertain, but this is certain ; 
and it is a fact new to the world—a fact fraught with such 
portentous consequences as to baffle the efforts even of the 
imagination. 

There are, at the present time, two great nations in the 
world, which seem to tend toward the same end, although they 
started from different points; I allude to the Russians and 
the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed ; 
and while the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, 
they have suddenly assutned a most prominent place among 
the nations; and the world learned their existence and their 
greatness at almost the same time. 

All other nations seem to have nearly reached their natural 
limits, and only to be charged with the maintenance of their 
power; but these are still in the act of growth ;* all the 
others are stopped, or continue to advance with extreme diffi¬ 
culty ; these are proceeding with ease and with celerity along 
a path to which the human eye can assign no term. The 
American struggles against the natural obstacles which op¬ 
pose him; the adversaries of the Russian are men; the for¬ 
mer combats the wilderness and savage life; the latter, civi¬ 
lisation with all its weapons and its arts; the conquests of 
the one are therefore gained by the ploughshare ; those of the 
other, by the sword. The Anglo-American relies upon per¬ 
sonal interest to accomplish his ends, and gives free scope to 
the unguided exertions and common sense of the citizens ; 
the Russian centres all the authority of society in a single 
arm: the principal instrument of the former is freedom ; of 
the latter, servitude. Their starting-point is different, and 
their courses are not the same ; yet each of them seems to be 
marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destinies of 
half the globe. 

* Russia is the country in the Old World in which population in¬ 
creases most rapidly in proportion. 



--. ii^i' ■' /sefe»'i?r^-j:.i ■ , *4 \ 

' (■ '■■'■' ' - , ' ■ ■« 
tv<^ Mhuy^r-i i-' > - ? .ni i . .)?f;'.^,i- . «k,^ 

jP^iG'^ i.is> 'f iA%ii--- ’\ ^^-t cpv^ '■‘*K *'^' - J&. ^( 

Pwi; i-a i;'^#’.^'.^ fJii^'.14_ .:>4: •i/;;ifiij ».;■'r.-.-■ * if ■• 

9r^ 'lV, d.V.’.Uht ‘,^ ^1 y^.nll jrvi,.ri: .-l^ .'ft 

y_ 'iIj h .ittr \>ji’K} o? n'iA'%b-i ,v v - ^ 

*. ;Oi.>i/»i~4 J ■ X il? )0 11 -i-l , .C' /'. ‘ ^^? 

I' J- .v'.; U> ;.x :,i.r 'Ml:,-- ,.:ift ^ 

.ft :S^'A-.'7 A’i,-t ».^ :: ,r < J i’ -.^i f. i > /(, /ri*Jj 

r.'fttj ;<■ VV* j» j 1‘!. j> tf?'fc li iij i.iijrt ' .''ijv/i:-.‘%(*i ' J 

'‘•■ \. /■: ■■ . . ”• ‘ri.V^^..;^b ?■-». -H v ' 

•J-Tij.' i*: ri.',>/’-rr T-» ’ j 

■ '^■^■^''t'' f^o? ■•iiv::' J 

jfr ff: 'pi:> Vfi; ...v.-ftf^ihr' •"; 

-fVi**.'* 7i^r:,:.'-i*;-'. v Ju'^ ‘■'•juitut-f; • • ^.v 4 V,v# 

Atrv'ii Oft rp^i*r^H y^y, iTff’ffUjfx; ''t*;* 

■^cui p. jUhf r^h.^yy ,y ijfnurw*i '^d'. 

'fji} ‘ a .'.iVs a49i.'ki:*:3 'ArsW’: i^iiXi 

M/iLt jlicsSlSlf I fili't *1:^ ‘l;>fTi 

uill rti [w3 ^ ih 

T wf.f iO awtil I Vi? kj’j>^' ‘rat* 

^?r*q ^KJ m^^yt^.[i:^^!,h■)(X^I^c£>^^A ^I’r ' s.ft y| 

fV sVjc-vs ‘m?. !fi-''VIuu .likv Hr>i 4o^7^a^ 

^ mf-l3.i?.ro iitit Kc.-fiuyy-"^ Ibrti; 

d 7) >i;»r J?,-; « -Kj.. 

% jv'nwaai T'Hiruyt A({t <9 in;;^dlg^,^3d hae^iD^hq cdi rnriB 

_ f/Cd {f^ •rbriT ,>•^u•/?^ ;:^ 

^1“? rfn»=f Hy \ *1171 ,.‘^e'1ftt ’ 

,1o ■^itrij^..'i> yrli 7«v% at' 'yr/mH >d Jtfy/lyo 5 . 7 l:^£u .- 

■ ^'' .''* ' !, / •^ • /' - ^■. ' . • V-^- 

M , rioiK'v ;>{ i^fviW s;0,^/ft iri v-r»-v'V^ i/A j.,f V*vk- j? * 

'■ r' ■ ■ "i ■ •" / .; •' •- • , '■'' • ' jjcMJV'TivtT/-tti vlJ,l;j‘ tstA ,.,...../!,.» ■- 

■■^' '...'■■.i : ;■ . ' ■ ''• . 

. ■> ■ ' . ^ V . , ■ . ■ .•■ • ■ ; 

”'■ ' ^’ W ■■ r . ‘ . .• .'“ -k'" ' . '■, - ' Vmb; 



APPENDIX. 


-v-. ' 

r: 

- -i 


APPENDIX A.—Page 17. 

Fon information concerning all the countries of the West which have 
not been visited by Europeans, consult the account of two expeditions 
undertaken at the expense of congress by Major Long. This traveller 
particularly mentions, on the subject of the great American desert, that 
a line may be drawn nearly parallel to the 20th degree of longitude* 
(meridian of Washington), beginning from the Red river and ending at 
the river Platte. From this imaginary line to the Rocky mountains, 
which bound the valley of the Mississippi on the west, lie immense 
plains, which are almost entirely covered with sand, incapable of cul¬ 
tivation, or scattered over with masses of granite. In summer, these 
plains are quite destitute of water, and nothing is to be seen on them 
but herds of buffaloes and wild horses. Some hordes of Indians are 
also found there, but in no great number. 

Major Long was told, that in travelling northward from the river 
Platte, you find the same desert constantly on the left; but he was un¬ 
able to ascertain the truth of this report. (Long’s Expedition, vol. ii., 
p. 361.) 

However worthy of confidence may be the narrative of Major Long, 
it must be remembered that he only passed through the country of 
which he speaks, without deviating widely from the line which he had 
traced out for his journey. 


. APPENDIX B.—Page 18. 

South America, in the regions between the tropics, produces an in¬ 
credible profusion of climbing-plants, of which the Flora of the Antilles 
alone presents us with forty different species. 

Among the most graceful of these shrubs is the passion-flower, 
which, according to Descourtiz, grows with such luxuriance in the 
Antilles, as to climb trees by means of the tendrils with which it is 
provided, and form moving bowers of rich and elegant festoons, deco¬ 
rated with blue and purple flowers, and fragrant with perfume. (Vol. 
i., p 265). ^ 

The mimosa scandens (acacia a grandes gousses) is a creeper of 
enormous and rapid growth, which climbs frorn tree to tree, and some¬ 
times covers more than half a league. (Vol. iii., p. 227.) 

♦ The 20th degree of Jongitude according to the meridian of Washington, agrees 
very nearly with the 97th degree on the meridian of Greenwich. 






444 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX C^Page2a 

The languages which are spoken by the Indians of America, froTn ther 
Pole to Cape Horn, are said to be all formed upon the same model, and 
subject to the same grammatical rules ; whence it may fairly be con¬ 
cluded that all the Indian nations sprang from the same stock. 

Each tribe of the American continent speaks a different dialect; but 
the number of languages, properly so called, is very small, a fact which 
tends to prove that the nations of the New World had not a very re¬ 
mote origin. 

Moreover, the languages of America have a great degree of regu¬ 
larity ; from which it seems probable that the tribes which employ 
them had not undergone any great revolutions, or been incorpo¬ 
rated, voluntarily, or by constraint, with foreign nations. For it is 
generally the union of several languages into one which produces 
grammatical irregularities. 

It is not long since the American languages, especially those of the 
north, first attracted the serious attention of philologists, when the 
discovery was made that this idiom of a barbarous people was the pro¬ 
duct of a complicated system of ideas and very learned combinations. 
These languages were found to be very rich, and great pains had been 
taken at their formation to render them agreeable to the ear. 

The grammatical system of the Americans differs from all others in 
several points, but especially in the following;— „ 

Some nations in Europe, among others the Germans, have the power 
of combining at plea«iure different expressions, and thus giving a com¬ 
plex sense to certain words. The Indians have given a most surprising 
extension to this power, so as to aiTive at the means of connecting a 
great number of ideas with a single term. This will be easily under¬ 
stood with the help of an example quoted by Mr. Duponceau, in the 
Memoirs of the Philosophical Society of America. 

“ A Delaware woman, playing with a cat or a young dog,” says this 
writer, “ is heard to pronounce the word kuligatschis; which is thus 
composed; k is the sign of the second person, and signifies ‘thou’ or 
‘thy;’ uH is a part of the word rmiHt, which signifies ‘beautiful,’ 
‘ pretty ;’ gat is another fragment of the word wichgat, which means 
‘ paw and lastly, schis is a diminutive giving the idea of smallness. 
Thus in one word the Indian woman ha? expressed, ‘ Thy pretty 
little paw.’ ” 

Take another example of the felicity with w'hich the savages of Ame¬ 
rica have composed their wmrds. A young man of Delaware is called 
pilape. This word is formed from pilsit, chaste, innocent; and 
lenape, man ; viz., man in his purity and innocence. 

Tins facility of combining words is most remarkable in the strange 
formation of their verbs. The most complex action is often expressed 
by a single verb, which serves to convey all the shades of an idea by 
the modification of its construction. 

Those who may wish to examine more in detail this subject, which 
I have only glanced at superficially, should read :— 

1 The correspondence of Mr. Duponceau and the Rev, Mr. Hec- 
welder relative to the Indian languages ; which is to be found in the 
first volume of the Memoirs of the Philosophical Societ} of America, 
published at Philadelphia, 1819, by Abraham Small, vol i., pp. 
356-464. 

2. The grammar of the Delaware or Lenape language by Geiberger, 





AFfENDIX. 445 

tn<l the preface of Mi . Duponceau. All these are in the same collec* 
tion, vol. iii. 

3. An excellent account o* these works, which is at the end of the 
^th volume ot the American Encyclopaedia. 


APPENDIX D.-Page 22. 

See in Charlevoix, vol i,, p. 23o, the history of the first war which the 
h rench inhabitants of Canada carried on, in 1010, against the Iroquois. 
The latter, armed with bows and arrows, offered a desperate resistance 
to the f rench and their allies. Charlevoix is not a great painter, yet 
he exhibits clearly enough, in this narrative, the contrast between the 
European manners and those of savages, as well as the different way in 
which the two races of men understood the sense of honor. 

When the French, says he, seized upon the beaver-skins which 
covered the Indians who had fallen, the Hurons, their allies, were 
greatly offended at this proceeding; but without hesitation the)' set to 
Work in their usual manner, indicting horrid cruelties upon the pri* 
soners, and devouring one of those who had been killed, which made 
the f renchmen shudder. The barbarians prided themselves upon a 
scrupulousness which they Were surprised at not finding in our nation; 
and could not understand that there was less to reprehend in the strip¬ 
ping of dead bodies, than iti the devouring of their flesh like wild 
beasts. 

Charlevoix, in another place (Vol. i., p. 230), thus describes the first 
torture of which Champlain was an eyewitness, and the return of the 
Hurons into their own village. 

“ Having proceeded about eight leagues,” says he, “ our allies halt¬ 
ed : and having singled out one of their captives, they reproached him 
with all the cruelties which he had practised upon the warriors of 
their nation who had fallen into his hands, and told him that he might 
expect to be treated in like manner; adding, that if he had any spirit 
he would prove it by singing. He immediately chanted forth his 
death-song, and then his war-song, and all the songs he knew, ‘ but in 
a very mournful strain,’ says Champlain, who was not then aware that 
all savage music has a melancholy character. The tortures which suc¬ 
ceeded, accompanied by all the horrors which we shall mention here¬ 
after, terrified the Frencli, W'ho made every effort to put a stop to them, 
but in vain. The following night one of the Hurons having dreamed 
that they were pursued, the retreat was changed to a real flight, and 
the savages never stopped until they were out of the reach of danger. 

The moment they perceived the cabins of their own village, they cut 
themselves long sticks, to which they fastened the scalps which had 
fallen to their share, and carried them in triumph. At this sight, the 
women swam to the canoes, where they received the bloody scalps 
from the hands of their husbands, and tied them round their necks. 

The warriors offered one of these horrible trophies to Champlain ; 
they also presented him with some bows and arrows—the only spoils 
of the Iroquois which they had ventured to seize—entreating him to 
show them to the king of France. 

Champlain lived a whole winter quite alone among these barbari¬ 
ans, without being under any alarm for his person or property. 


39 




446 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX E.—Page 36. 

A 1 .TH 0 UGH the puritanical strictness which presided over the estab¬ 
lishment of the English colonies in America is now much relaxed, re¬ 
markable traces of it are still found in their habits and their laws. In 
1792, at the very time when the anti-Christian republic of France be¬ 
gan its ephemeral existence, the legislative body of Massachusetts pro¬ 
mulgated the following law, to compel the citizens to observe the 
sabbath. We give tie preamble, and the principal articles of this law, 
which is worthy of the reader’s attention. 

“ Whereas,” says the legislator, “ the observation of the Sunday is 
an affair of public interest; inasmuch as it produces a necessary sus¬ 
pension of labor, leads men to reflect upon the duties of life and the 
errors to which human nature is liable, and provides for the public and 
private worship of God the creator and governor of the universe, and 
for the performance of such acts of charity as are the ornament and 
comfort of Christian societies:— 

“ Whereas, irreligious or light-minded persons, forgetting the du¬ 
ties which the sabbath imposes, and the benefits which these duties 
confer on society, are known to profane its sanctity, by following their 
pleasures or their affairs ; this way of acting being contrary to their 
own interest as Christians, and calculated to annoy those who do not 
follow their example ; being also of great injury to society at large, by 
spreading a taste for dissipation and dissolute manners ;— 

“ Be it enacted and ordained by the governor, council, and repre¬ 
sentatives convened in general court of assembly, that all and every 
person and persons shall, on that day, carefully apply themselves to 
the duties of religion and piety ; that no tradesman or laborer shall 
exercise his ordinary calling, and that no game or recreation shall be 
used on the Lord’s day, upon pain of forfeiting ten shillings;— 

“ That no one shall travel on that day, or any part thereof, under 
pain of forfeiting twenty shillings; that no vessel shall leave a harbor 
of the colony; that no person shall keep outside the meetinghouse 
during the time of public worship, or profane the time by playing or 
talking, on penalty of five shillings. 

“ Public-houses shall not entertain any other than strangers or 
lodgers, under a penalty of five shillings for every person found drink¬ 
ing or abiding therein 

“ Any person in health who, without sufficient reason, shall omit to 
worship God in public during three months, shall be condemned to a 
fine of ten shillings. 

“ Any person guilty of misbehavior in a place of public worship 
shall be fined from five to forty shillings. 

“These laws are to be enforced by the tithing-men of each town¬ 
ship, who have authority to visit public-houses on the Sunday. The 
innkeeper who shall refuse them admittance shall be fined forty shil¬ 
lings for such offence. 

“ The tithing-men are to stop travellers, and to require of them their 
reason for being on the road on Sunday: any one refusing to answer 
shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding five pounds sterling. If 
the reason given by the traveller be not deemed by the tithing-men 
sufficient, he may bring the traveller before the justice of the peace 
of the district.” {Law of the 8th March, 1792 : General Laws of 
Massachusetts, vol. i., p. 410.) 

On the 11th March, 1797, a new law increased the amount of fines. 




APPENDIX. 


447 


half of which was to be given to the informer. {Same collection^ 
vol. ii., p. 525.) 

On the 16th February, 1816, a new law confirmed these measures. 
{Same collection, vol. ii., p. 405.) 

Similar enactments exist in the laws of the state of New York, re¬ 
vised in 1827 and 1828. (See Revised Statutes, part i., chapter 20, 
p. 675.) In these it is declared that no one is allowed on the sabbath 
to sport, to fish, play at games, or to frequent houses where liquor is 
sold. No one can travel except in case of necessity. 

And this is not the only trace which the religious strictness and 
austere manners of the first emigrants have left behind them in the 
American laws. 

In the revised statutes of the state of New York, vol. i., p. 662, is 
the following clause :— 

“ Whoever shall win or lose in the space of twenty-four hours, by 
gaming or betting, the sum of twenty-five dollars, shall be found guilty 
of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be condemned to pay a 
fine equal to at least five times the value of the sum lost or won ; which 
will be paid to the inspector of the poor of the township. He that 
loses twenty-five dollars or more, may bring an action to recover them; 
and if he neglects to do so, the inspector of the poor may prosecute 
the winner, and oblige him to pay into the poor box both the sum he 
has gained and three times as much beside.” 

The laws we quote from are of recent date ; but they are unintelli¬ 
gible without going back to the very origin of the colonies. I have no 
doubt that in our days the penal part of these laws is very rarely ap¬ 
plied. Laws preserve their inflexibility long after the manners of a 
nation have yielded to the influence of time. It is still true, however, 
that nothing strikes a foreigner on his arrival in America more forci¬ 
bly than the regard to the sabbath. 

There is one, in particular, of the large American cities, in which 
all social movements begin to be suspended even on Saturday evening. 
You traverse its streets at the hour at which you expect men in the 
middle of life to be engaged in business, and young people in plea¬ 
sure; and you meet with solitude and silence. Not only have all 
ceased to wWk, but they appear to have ceased to exist. Neither the 
movements of industry are heard, nor the accents of joy, nor even the 
confused murmur which arises from the midst of a great city. Chains 
are hung across the streets in the neighborhood of the churches ; the 
half closed shutters of the houses scarcely admit a ray of sun into the 
dwellings of the citizens. Now and then you perceive a solitary in¬ 
dividual, who glides silently along the deserted streets and lanes. 

Next day, at early dawn, the rolling of carriages, the noise of ham¬ 
mers, the cries of the population, begin to make themselves heard 
again. The city is awake. An eager crowd hastens toward the resort 
of commerce and industry; everything around you bespeaks motion, 
bustle, hurry. A feverish activity succeeds to the lethargic stupor of 
yesterday: you might almost suppose that they had but one day to ac¬ 
quire wealth and to enjoy it. 


APPENDIX F.-Page 41. 

It is unnecessary for me to say, that in the chapter which has just 
been read, I have not had the intention of giving a history of Ameri- 




448 


APPENDIX. 


ca. My only object was to enable the reader to appreciate the influ¬ 
ence which the opinions and manners of the first emigrants had exer¬ 
cised upon the fate of the diflerent colonies and of the Union In general 
I have therefore confined myself to the quotation of a few detached 
fragments. 

1 do not know whether I am deceived, but it appears to me that by 
pursuing the path which I have merely pointed out, it would be easy 
to present such pictures of the American republics as would not be un¬ 
worthy the attention of the public, and could not fail to suggest to the 
statesman matter for reflection. 

Not being able to devote myself to this labor, I am anxious to render 
it easy to others ; and for this purpose, 1 subjoin a short catalogue 
and analysis of the works which seem to me the most important to 
consult. 

At the head of the general documents, which it would be advan¬ 
tageous to examine, I place the work entitled An Historical Collec¬ 
tion of State Papers, and other authentic Documents, intended as 
Materi.ils for a History of the United States of America, by Ebenezer 
Hasard. The first volume of this compilatio n, which was printed at 
Philadelphia in 1792, contains a literal copy of all the charters granted 
by the crown of England to the emigrants, as well as the principal 
acts of the colonial governments, during the commencement of their 
existence. Among other authentic documents, we here find a great 
many relating to the affairs of New England and Virginia during this 
period. The second volume is almost entirely devoted to the acts of 
the confederation of 1G43. This federal compact, which was entered 
into by the colonies of New England with the view of resisting the 
Indians, was the first instance of union afforded by the Anglo-Ameri¬ 
cans. There were besides many other confederations of the same na¬ 
ture, before the famous one of 1776, which brought about the inde¬ 
pendence of the colonies. 

Each colony has, besides, its own historic monuments, some of 
which are extremely curious; beginning with Virginia, the state w'hich 
was first peopled. The earliest historian of Virginia was its founder, 
Capt. John Smith. Capt. Smith has left us an octavo volume, enti¬ 
tled, The generall Historie of Virginia and New England, by Captain 
John Smith, sometymes Governour in those Countryes, and Admirall 
of New England; printed at London in 1627. The work is adorned 
with curious maps and engravings of the time when it appeared ; the 
narrative extends from the year 15S4 to 1626. Smith’s w'ork is highly 
and deservedly esteemed. The author was one of the most celebrated 
adventurers of a period of remarkable adventure ; his book breathes 
that ardor for discovery, that spirit of enterprise which characterized 
the men of his time, when the manners of chivalry were united to 
ze.il for commerce, and made subservient to the acquisition of wealth. 

But Capt. Smith is remarkable for uniting, to the virtues which ■ 
characterized his contemporaries, several qualities to which they 
were generally strangers : his style is simple and concise, his narra¬ 
tives bear the stamp of truth, and his descriptions are free from false 
ornament. 

This author throws most valuable light upon the state and condition 
of the Indians at the time when North America was first discovered. 

The second historian to consult is Beverley, who commences his 
narrative with the year 1583, and ends it with 1700. The first part 
of his book contains historical documents, properly so called, relative 
to the infancy of the colony. The second affords a most curious pic- 






APPENDIX. 


449 


tnre of the' Indians at this remote period. The third conveys very 
clear ideas concerning the manners, social condition, laws, and politi¬ 
cal customs of the Virginians in the author’s lifetime. 

Beverley was a native of Virginia, which occasions him to say at the 
besrinninr of his book that he entreats his readers not to exercise their 
critical severity upon it, since, having been born in the Indies, he does 
not aspire to purity of language. Notwithstanding this colonial mo¬ 
desty, the author shows throughout his book the impatience with 
which he endures the supremacy of the mother-country. In this 
work of Beverley are also found numerous traces of that spirit of civil 
liberty which animated the English colonies of America at the time 
when he wrote. He also shows the dissensions which existed among 
them and retarded their independence. Beverley detests his catholic 
neighbors of Maryland, even more than he hates the English govern¬ 
ment: his style is simple, his narrative interesting and apparently 
trustworthy. 

I saw in America another work which ought to be consulted, enti¬ 
tled, The History of Virginia, by William Stith. This book affords 
"some curious details, but I thought it long and diffuse 

The most ancient as well as the best document to be consulted on 
the history of Carolina is a work in a small quarto, entitled, The His¬ 
tory of Carolina, by John Lawson, printed at London in 1718. This 
work contains, in the first part, a journey of discovery in the west of 
Carolina; the account of which, given in the form of a journal, is in 
general confused and superficial; but it contains a very striking de¬ 
scription of the mortality caused among the savages of that time, both 
by the small-pox and the immoderate use of brandy ; and with a cu¬ 
rious picture of the corruption of manners prevalent among them, 
which was increased by the presence of Europeans. The second part 
of Lawson’s book is taken up with a description of the physical con¬ 
dition of Carolina, and its productions. In the third part, the author 
gives an interesting account of the manners, customs, and government 
of the Indians at that period. There is a good deal of talent and 
originality in this part of the work. 

Lawson concludes his history with a copy of the charter granted to 
the Carolinas in the reign of Charles H. The general tone of this 
work is light, and often licentious, forming a perfect contrast to the 
solemn style of the works published at the same period in New Eng- 
laid. Lawson’s history is extremely scarce in America, and cannot 
be procured in Europe. There is, however, a copy of it in the royal 
library at Paris. 

From the southern extremity of the United States I pass at once to 
the northern limit; as the intermediate space was not peopled till a 
later period. 

I must first point out a very curious compilation, entitled. Collection 
of the Massachusetts Historical Society, printed for the first time at 
Boston in 1792, and reprinted in 1S06. The collection of which I 
speak, and which is continued to the present day, contains a great 
number of very valuable documents relating to the history of the dif¬ 
ferent states of New England. Among them are letters which have 
never been published, and authentic pieces which have been buried in 
provincial archives. The whole work of Gookin concerning the In¬ 
dians is inserted there. 

I have mentioned several times, in the chapter to which this note re¬ 
lates, the work of Nathaniel Norton, entitled New England’s Memo- 
ri^ ; sufficiently perhaps to prove that it deserves the attention of those 

39* 


450 


APPENDIX. 


who would be conversant with the history of New England. This 
book is in 8vo. and was reprinted at Boston in 1826. 

The most valuable and important authority which exists upon the 
history of New England is the work of the Rev. Cotton Mather, en¬ 
titled Magnalia Christ! Americana, or the Ecclesiastical History of 
New England. 1620—1698, 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted at Hartford, United 
States, in 1820.* The author divided his work into seven books. 
The first presents the history of the events which prepared and brought 
about the establishment of New England. The second contains the 
lives of the first governors and chief magistrates who presided over 
the country. The third is devoted to the lives and labors of the evan¬ 
gelical ministers who during the same period had the care of souls. 
In the fourth the author relates the institution and progress of the Uni¬ 
versity of Cambridge (Massachusetts). In the fifth he describes the 
principles and the discipline of the Church of New England. The 
sixth is taken up in retracing certain facts, which, in the opinion of 
Mather, prove the merciful interposition of Providence in behalf of 
the inhabitants of New England. Lastly, in the seventh, the author 
gives an account of the heresies and the troubles to which the Church 
of New England was exposed. Cotton Mather was an evangelical 
minister who was born at Boston, and passed his life there. His nar¬ 
ratives are distinguished by the same ardor and religious zeal which 
led to the foundation of the colonies of New England. Traces of bad 
taste sometimes occur in his manner of writing ; but he interests, be¬ 
cause he is full of enthusiasm. He is often intolerant, still oftener 
credulous, but he never betrays an intention to deceive. Sometimes 
his book contains fine passages, and true and profound reflections, 
such as the following:— 

“ Before the arrival of the Puritans,” says he (vol. i., chap, iv.), 
“ there were more than a few attempts of the English to people and 
improve the parts of New England which were to the northward of 
New Plymouth ; but the design of those attempts being aimed no 
higher than the advancement of some worldly interests, a constant 
series of disasters has confounded them, until there was a plantation 
erected upon the nobler designs of Christianity: and that plantation, 
though it has had more adversaries than perhaps any one upon earth, 
yet, having obtained help from God, it continues to this day.” 

Mather occasionally relieves the austerity of his descriptions with 
images full of tender feeling: after having spoken of an English lady 
whose religious ardor had brought her to America with her husband, 
and who soon after sank under the fatigues and privations of exile, he 
adds, “ As for her virtuous husband, Isaac Johnson, 

He tried 

To live without her, liked it not, and died.”—(V ol. i.) 

Mather’s work gives an admirable picture of the time and country 
which he describes. In his account of the motives which led the 
puritans to seek an asylum beyond seas, he says :— 

“ The God of heaven served, as it were, a summons upon the spirits 
of his people in the English nation, stirring up the spirits of thousands 
which never saw the faces of each other, with a most unanimous incli¬ 
nation to leave the pleasant accommodations of their native country, 
and go over a terrible ocean, into a more terrible desert, for the pure 
enjoyment of all his ordinances. It is now reasonable that, before we 


* A folio edition of this work was published in London vn 1702. 


APPENDIX. 


451 


pass any farther, the reasons of this undertaking should be more exactly 
made known unto posterity, especially unto the posterity of those 
that were the undertakers, lest they come at length to forget and neglect 
the true interest of New England. Wherefore I shall now transcribe 
some of them from a manuscript wherein they were then tendered unto 
consideration. 

“ General Considerations for the Plantation of JSTew England. 

“ First, it will be a service unto the church of great consequence, to 
carry the gospel unto those parts of the world, and raise a bulwark 
against the kingdom of antichrist, which the Jesuits labor to rear up in 
all parts of the world. 

“ Secondly, all other churches of Europe have been brought under 
desolations ; and it may be feared that the like judgments are coming 
upon us ; and who knows but God hath provided this place to be a 
refuge for many whom he means to save out of the general destruction! 

“ Thirdly, the land grows weary of her inhabitants, inasmuch that 
man, which is the most precious of all creatures, is here more vile and 
base than the earth he treads upon; children, neighbors, and friends, 
especially the poor, are counted the greatest burdens, which, if things 
were right, would be the chiefest of earthly blessings. 

“ Fourthly, we are grown to that intemperance in all excess of riot, 
as no mean estate almost will suffice a man to keep sail with his equals, 
and he that fails in it must live in scorn and contempt ; hence it comes 
to pass, that ail arts and trades are carried in that deceitful manner 
and unrighteous course, as it is almost impossible for a good upright 
man to maintain his constant charge and live comfortably in them. 

“ Fifthly, the schools of learning and religion are so corrupted, as 
(beside the unsupportable charge of education) most children, even the 
best, wittiest, and of the fairest hopes, are prevented, corrupted, and 
utterly overthrown by the multitude of evil examples and licentious 
behaviors in these seminaries. 

“ Sixthly, the whole earth is the Lord’s garden, and he hath given 
it to the sons of Adam, to be tilled and improved by them : why then 
should we stand starving here for places of habitation, and in the 
mean time suffer whole countries, as profitable for the use of man, to 
lie waste without any improvement ? 

“ Seventhly, what can be a better or a nobler work, and more worthy 
of a Christian, than to erect and support a reformed particular church 
in its infancy, and unite our forces with such a company of faithful 
people, as by timely assistance may grow stronger and prosper ; but for 
want of it, may be put to great hazards, if not be wholly ruined 

“ Eighthly, if any such as are known to be godly, and live in wealth 
and prosperity here, shall forsake all this to join with this reformed 
church, and with it run the hazard of a hard and mean condition, it 
will be an example of great use, both for the removing of scandal, and 
to give more life unto the faith of God’s people in their prayers for the 
plantation, and also to encourage others to join the more willingly in 
It.” 

Farther on, when he declares the principles of the church of New 
England with respect to morals, Mather inveighs with violence against 
the custom of drinking healths at table, which he denounces as a pagan 
and abominable practice. He proscribes with the same rigor all orna¬ 
ments for the hair used by the female sex, as well as their custom of 
having the arms and neck uncovered. 





452 


appendix. 


In another part of his work he relates several instances of witchcraft 
which had alarmed New En^daad. It is plain that the visible action 
of the devil in the affairs of this world appeared to him an incontesti- 
ble and evident fact. 

This work of Cotton Mather displays in many places, the spirit of 
civil liberty and political independence which characterized the times 
in which he lived. Their principles^ respecting government are dis- 
cover.able at every page. Thus, for instince, the inhabitants of Massa¬ 
chusetts, in the year IfiS ), ten years after the foundation of Plymouth, 
are found to have devoted 4UU/. sterling to the establishment of the 
University of Cambridge. In passing from the general documents 
relative to the history of New England, to those which describe the 
several states comprised within its limits, I ought first to notice The 
History of the Colony of Massachusetts, by Hutchinson, Lieutenant- 
Governor of the M issachusetts Province, 2 vols., 8vo. 

The history of Hutchinson, which I have several times quoted in 
the chapter to which this note relates, commences in the year 1628 and 
ends in 1 7-30. Throughout the work there is a striking air of truth 
and the greatest simplicity of style ; it is full of minute details. 

The best history to consult concerning Connecticut is that of Benja¬ 
min Trumbull, entitled, A Complete History of Connecticut, Civil and 
Ecclesiastical, 1630-1764; 2 vols., 8vo., printed in 1818, at New 
Haven. This history contains a clear and calm account of all the 
events which happened in Connecticut during the period given in the 
title. The author drew from the best sources; and his narrative 
bears the stamp of truth. All that he says of the early days of Con¬ 
necticut is extremely curious. See especially the constitution of 1639, 
vol. i., ch.^vi., p. lOJ ; and also the penal laws of Connecticut, vol. i., 
ch. vii., p. 123. 

The History of New Hampshire, by Jeremy Belknap, is a work held 
in merited estimation. It was printed at Boston in 1792, in 2 vols., 
8vo. The third chapter of the first volume is particularly worthy of 
attention for the valuable details it affords on the political and religious 
principles of the puritans, on the causes of their emigration, and on 
their laws. The following curious quotation is given from a sermon 
delivered in 1663 : “It concerneth New England always to remember 
that they are a plantation religious, not a plantation of trade. The 
profession of the purity of doctrine, worship, and discipline, is written 
on her forehead. Let merchants, and such as are increasing cent, 
per cent, remember this, that worldly gain was not the end and design 
of the people of New England, but religion. And if any man among 
us make religion as twelve, and the world as thirteen, such an one hath 
not the true spirit of a true New Englishman.” The reader of Belknap 
will find in his work more general ideas, and more strength of thought, 
than are to be met with in the American historians even to the present 
day. 

Among the central states which deserve our attention for their 
remote origin. New York and Pennsylvania are the foremost. The 
best history we have of the former is entitled A History of New York, by 
William Smith, printed in London in 1757 Smith gives us important 
details of the wars between the French and English in America. His 
is the best account of the famous confederation of the Iroquois. 

With respect to Pennsylvania, I cannot do better than point out.the 
work of Proud, entitled the History of Pennsylvania, from the original 
Institution and Settlement of that Province, under the first Proprietor 
and Governor, William Penn, in 1681, till after the year 1742 ; by 


APPENDIX. 


453 


Robert Proud; 2 vols., 8vo., printed at Philadelphia in 1797. This 
work is deserving of the especial attention of the reader ; it contains a 
mass of curious documents concerning Penn, the doctrine of the 
Quakers, and the character, manners, and customs of the first inhabit¬ 
ants of Pennsylvania. 


APPENDIX G.—Page 48. 

We read in Jefferson’s Memoirs as follows :— 

“ At the time of the first settlement of the English in Virginia, when 
land was had for little or nothing, some provident persons having 
obtained large grants of it, and being desirous of maintaining the 
solendor of their families, entailed their property upon their descen¬ 
dants. The transmission of these estates from generation to generation, 
to men who bore the same name, had the effect of raising up a distinct 
class of families, who, possessing by law the privilege of perpetuating 
their wealth, formed by these means a sort of patrician order, distin¬ 
guished by the grandeur and luxury of their establishments From 
this order it was that the king usually chose his counsellor of state.”* 

In the United States, the principal clauses of the English law respect¬ 
ing descent have been universally rejected. The first rule that we 
follow, says Mr. Kent, touching inheritance, is the following: If a man 
dies intestate, his property goes to his heirs in a direct line. If he has 
but one heir or heiress, he or she succeeds to the whole. If there are 
several heirs of the same degree, they divide the inheritance equally 
among them, without distinction of sex. 

This rule was prescribed for the first time in the state of New York 
by a statute of the 23d of February, 1786. (See Revised Statutes, vol. iii.. 
Appendix, p. 48 ) It has since then been adopted in the revised 
statutes of the same state. At the present day this law holds good 
throughout the whole of the United States, with the exception of the 
state of Vermont, where the male heir inherits a double portion: 
Kent’s Commentaries, vol. iv., p. 370. Mr. Kent, in the same work, 
vol. iv., p. 1-22, gives an historical account of American legislation on 
the subject of entail; by this we learn that previous to the revolution 
the colonies followed the English law of entail. Estates tail were 
abolished in Virginia in 1776, on a motion of Mr. Jefferson. They 
were suppressed in New York in 1786; and have since been 
abolished in North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and 
Missouri. In Vermont, Indiana, Illinois, South Carolina, and Louisi¬ 
ana, entail was never introduced. Those States which thought proper 
to preserve the English law of entail, modified it in such a way as to 
deprive it of its most aristocratic tendencies. “ Our general principles 
on the subject of government,” says Mr. Kent, “ tend to favor the free 
circulation of property.” 

It cannot fail to strike the French reader who studies the law of 
inheritance, that on these questions the French legislation is infinitely 
more democratic even than the American. 

The American law makes an equal division of the father’s property, 
but only in the case of his will not being known ; “ for every man,” 
says the law, “in the state of New York (Revised Statutes, vol iii., 

* This pa.ssage is extracted and translated from M. Conseil’s work upon the Life 
of Jcifcrson, eulilled, “ Melanges Puliiiques et Philosophiques de Jefferson." 






454 


APPENDIX. 


Appendix, p. 51), has entire liberty, power, and authority, to dispose 
of his property by will, to leave it entire, or divided in favor of any 
persons he chooses as his heirs, provided he do not leave it to a politi¬ 
cal body or any corporation.” The French law obliges the testator to 
divide his property equally, or nearly so, among his heirs. 

Most of the American republics still admit of entails, under cer¬ 
tain restrictions ; but the French law prohibits entail in all cases. 

If the social condition of the Americans is more democratic than 
that of the French, the laws of the latter are the most democratic of 
the two. This may be explained more easily than at first appears to 
be the case. In France, democracy is still occupied in the work 
of destruction; in America it reigns quietly over the ruins it has 
made. 


APPENDIX H.—Page 55. 

SUMMARY OF THP QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS IN THE UNITED 

STATES. 

All the states agree in granting the right of voting at the age of 
twenty-one. In all of them it is necessary to have resided for a cer¬ 
tain time in the district where the vote is given. This period varies 
from three months to two years. 

As to the qualification; in the state of Massachusetts it is neces¬ 
sary to have an income of three pounds sterling or a capital of sixty 
pounds. • 

In Rhode Island a man must possess landed property to the amount 
of 133 dollars. 

In Connecticut he must have a property which gives an income of 
seventeen dollars. A year of service in the militia also gives the elec¬ 
tive privilege. 

In New Jersey, an elector must have a property of fifty pounds a 
year. 

In South Carolina and Maryland, the elector must possess fifty acres 
of land. 

In Tennessee, he must possess some property. 

In the states of Mississippi, Ohio, Georgia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware, New York, the only necessary qualification for voting is that 
of paying the taxes; and in most of the states, to serve in the militia 
is equivalent to the payment of taxes. 

In Maine and New Hampshire any man can vote who is not on the 
pauper list. 

Lastly, in the states of Missouri, Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, Indi¬ 
ana, Kentucky, and Vermont, the conditions of voting have no refer¬ 
ence to the property of the elector. 

I believe there is no other state beside that of North Carolina in 
which different conditions are applied to the voting for the senate and 
the electing the house of representatives. The electors of the former, 
in this case, should possess in property fifty acres of land ; to vote for 
the latter, nothing more is required than to pay taxes. 





APPENDIX. 


455 


APPENDIX I.—Page 92. ^ 

The small number of custom-house officers employed in the United 
States compared with the extent of the coast renders smuggling very 
easy; notwithstanding which it is less practised than elsewhere, be¬ 
cause everybody endeavors to suppress it. In America there is no 
police for the prevention of fires, and such accidents are more frequent 
than in Europe : but in general they are more speedily extinguished, 
because the surrounding population is prompt in lending assistance. 


APPENDIX K.—Page 94. 

It is incorrect to assert that centralization was produced by the French 
revolution : the revolution brought it to perfection, but did not create 
it. The mania for centralization and government regulations dates 
from the time when jurists began to take a share in the government, 
in the time of Philippe-le-Bel; ever since which period they have 
been on the increase. In the year 1775, M. de Malesherbes, speaking 
in the name of the Cour des Aides, said to Louis XIV.* 

“ * * * * Every corporation and every community of citizens 

retained the right of administering its own affairs ; a right which not 
only forms part of the primitive constitution of the kingdom, but has 
a still higher origin ; for it is the right of nature and of reason. Nev¬ 
ertheless, your subjects, sire, have been deprived of it; and we cannot 
refrain from saying that in this respect your government has fallen into 
puerile extremes. From the time when powerful ministers made it a 
political principle to prevent the convocation of a national assembly, 
one consequence has succeeded another, until the deliberations of the 
inhabitants of a village are declared null when they have not been au¬ 
thorized by the intendant. Of course, if the community have an ex¬ 
pensive undertaking to carry through, it must remain under the control 
of the sub-delegate of the intendant, and consequently follow the plan 
he proposes, employ his favorite workmen, pay them according to his 
pleasure ; and if an action at law is deemed necessary, the intendant’s 
permission must be obtained. The cause must be pleaded before this 
first tribunal, previous to its being carried into a public court; and if 
the opinion of the intendant is opposed to that of the inhabitants, or if 
their adversary enjoys his favor, the community is deprived of the 
power of defending its rights. Such are the means, sire, which have 
been exerted to extinguish the municipal spirit in France; and to 
stifle, if possible, the opinions of the citizens. The nation may be 
said to lie under an interdict, and to be in wardship under guardians.” 

What could be said more to the purpose at the present day, when 
the revolution has achieved what are called its victories in centrali¬ 
zation ? 

In 1789, Jefferson wrote from Paris to one of his friends: “There 
is no country where the mania for over-governing has taken deeper root 
than in France, or been the source of greater mischief.” Letter to 
Madison, 28th August, 1789. 

The fact is that for several centuries past the central power of France 
has done everything it could to extend central administration ; it has 

* See “ M^moires pour servir i I’Histoire du Droit Public de la France eu matiire 
d’lnipdu,” p. 654, primed at firuasels ia 1779. 






456 


APPENDIX. 


acknowledged no other limits than its own strength. The central 
power to which the revolution gave birth made more rapid advances 
than any of its predecessors, because it was stronger and wiser than 
they had been; Louis XIV. committed the welfare of such communi¬ 
ties to the caprice of an iritendant; Napoleon left them to that of the 
minister. The same principle governed both, though its consequences 
were more or less remote. 


APPENDIX L.—Page 97. 

This immutability of the constitution of France is a necessary conse¬ 
quence of the laws of that country. 

To begin with the most important of all the laws, that which de¬ 
cides the order of succession to the throne; what can be more immu¬ 
table in its principle than a political order founded upon the natural 
succession of father to sonIn 1814 Louis XVIII. had established 
the perpetual law of hereditary succession in favor of his own family. 
The individuals who regulated the consequences of the revolution of 
183'.! followed his example; they merely established the perpetuity of 
the law in favor of another family. In this respect they imitated the 
Chancellor Maurepas, who, when he erected the new parliament upon 
the ruins of the old, took care to declare in the same ordinance that the 
rights of the new magistrates should be as inalienable as those of their 
predecessors had been. 

The laws of 1830, like those of 1814, point out no way of changing 
the constitution ; and it is evident that the ordinary means of legislation 
are insufficient for this purpose. As the king, peers, and deputies, all 
derive their authority from the constitution, these three powers united 
cannot alter a law by virtue of which alone they govern Out of the 
pale of the constitution, they are nothing; where, then, could they 
take their stand to effect a change in its provisions ? The alternative 
is clear; either their efforts are powerless against the charter, which 
continues to exist in spite of them, in which case they only reign in 
the name of the charter; or, they succeed in changing the charter, and 
then the law by which they existed being annulled, they themselves 
cease to exist. By destroying the charter, they destroy themselves. 

This is much more evident in the laws of 1830 than in those of 
1814. In 1814, the royal prerogative took its stand above and beyond 
the constitution ; but in 1830, it was avowedly created by, and depend¬ 
ant on, the constitution. 

A part therefore of the French constitution is immutable, because 
it is united to the destiny of a family; and the body of the constitution 
is equally immutable, because there appear to be no legal means of 
changing it. 

These remarks are not applicable to England. That country hav¬ 
ing no written constitution, who can assert when its constitution is 
changed ? 


APPENDIX M.—Page 97. . 

The most esteemed authors who have written upon the English con¬ 
stitution agree with each other in establishing the omnipotence of the 
parliament. 





APPENDIX 


457 


Delolme says: “ It is a fundamental principle with the English 
lawyers, that parliament can do everything except making a woman a 
man, or a man a woman.” 

Blackstone expresses himself more in detail if not more energeti¬ 
cally than Delolme, in the following terms:— 

“ The power and jurisdiction of parliament,” says Sir Edward Coke 
(4 Inst. 36), “ is so transcendant and absolute, that it cannot be con¬ 
fined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds. And of this 
high court,” he adds, “ may be truly said, ‘ Si antiquitatem spectes, 
est vetustissima; si dignitatem, est honoratissima; si jurisdictionem, 
est capacissima.’ It hath sovereign and uncontrollable authority in 
making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, re¬ 
viving and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible de¬ 
nominations ; ecclesiastical or temporal; civil, military, maritime, or 
criminal; this being the place w'here that absolute despotic power 
which must, in all governments, reside somewhere, is intrusted by the 
constitution of these kingdoms. All mischiefs and grievances, opera¬ 
tions and remedies, that transcend the ordinary course of the laws, are 
within the reach of this extraordinary tribunal. It can regulate or 
new-model the succession to the crown; as was done in the reigns of 
Henry VIII. and William III. It can alter the established religion of 
the land; as was done in a variety of instances in the reigns of King 
Henry VIII. and his three children. It can change and create afresh 
even the constitution of the kingdom, and of the parliaments them¬ 
selves ; as was done by the act of union and the several statutes for 
triennial and septennial elections. It can, in short, do everything that 
is not naturally impossible to be done ; and, therefore, some have not 
scrupled to call its power, by a figure rather too bold, the omnipo¬ 
tence of parliament.” 


APPENDIX N.—Page 107. 

There is no question upon which the American constitutions agree 
more fully than upon that of political jurisdiction. All the constitu¬ 
tions which take cognizance of this matter, give to the house of dele¬ 
gates the exclusive right of impeachment; excepting only the consti¬ 
tution of North Carolina which grants the same privilege to grand- 
juries. (Article 23.) 

Almost all the constitutions give the exclusive right of pronouncing 
sentence to the senate, or to the assembly which occupies its place. 

The only punishments which the political tribunals can inflict are 
removal and interdiction of public functions for the future. There is 
no other constitution but that of Virginia (152), which enables them 
to inflict every kind of punishment. 

The crimes w'hich are subject to political jurisdiction, are, in the 
federal constitution (section 4, art. 1) ; in that of Indiana (art. 3, para¬ 
graphs 23 and 24); of New York (art. 5); of Delaware (art. 5); high 
treason, bribery, and other high crimes or offences. 

In the constitution of Massachusetts (chap. 1, section 2); that of 
North Carolina (art. 23); of Virginia (p. 252), misconduct and malad¬ 
ministration. 

In the constitution of New Hampshire (p. 105) corruption, intrigue, 
and mal-administration. 

In Vermont (chap, ii., art. 24), mal-administration. 



458 


APPENDIX. 


In South Carolina (art. 5); Kentucky (art. 5); Tennessee (art. 4); 
Ohio (art. 1, § 23, 24); Louisiana (art. 5) ; Mississippi (art. .'>); Ala¬ 
bama (art. 6); Pennsylvania (art. 4); crimes committed in the non¬ 
performance of official duties. 

In the states of Illinois, Georgia, Maine, and Connecticut, no parti¬ 
cular offences are specified. 


APPENDIX 0.—Page 171. 

It is true that the powers of Europe may carry on maritime wars with 
the Union; but there is always greater facility and less danger in sup¬ 
porting a maritime than a continental war. Maritime warfare only 
requires one species of effort. A commercial people which consents 
to furnish its government with the necessary funds, is sure to possess a 
fleet. And it is far easier to induce a nation to part with its money, 
almost unconsciously, than to reconcile it to sacrifices of men and personal 
efforts. Moreover, defeat by sea rarely compromises the existence or 
independence of the people which endures it. 

As for continental wars, it is evident that the nations of Europe 
cannot be formidable in this way to the American Union. It would 
be very difficult to transport and maintain in America more than 
25,000 soldiers; an army which may be considered to represent a na¬ 
tion of 2,000,000 of men. The most populous nation of Europe con¬ 
tending in this way against the Union, is in the position of a nation of 
2,000,0o0 of inhabitants at war with one of 12,000,000. Add to this, 
that .America has all its resources within reach, while the European 
is at 4,000 miles distance from his; and that the immensity of the Ame¬ 
rican continent would of itself present an insurmountable obstacle to 
its conquest. 


APPENDIX P.—Page 186. ! ■ 

The first American journal appeared in April, 1704, and was publish¬ 
ed at Boston.* See collection of the Historical Society of Massachu¬ 
setts, vol. vi., p. 66. ■ 

It would be a mistake to suppose that the periodical press has always 
been entirely free' in the American colonies : an attempt was made to 
establish something analogous to a censorship and preliminary security. 
Consult the Legislative Documents of Massachusetts of the 14th of 
January, 1722. 

The committee appointed by the general assembly (the legislative 
body of the province), for the purpose of examining into circumstances 
connected with a paper entitled “ The New' England Courier,” express¬ 
es its opinion that “ the tendency of the said journal is to turn reli¬ 
gion into derision, and bring it into contempt; that it mentions the 
sacred writings in a profane and irreligious manner; that it puts mali¬ 
cious interpretations upon the conduct of the ministers of the gospel; 
and that the government of his majesty is insulted, and the peace 
and tranquillity of the province disturbed by the said journal. 
The committee is consequently of opinion that the printer and 
publisher, James Franklin, should be forbidden to print and publish 
the said journal or any other work in future, without having previous- 








APPENDIX. 


459 


ly submitted it to the secretary of the province; and that the justices 
of the peace for the county of Suffolk should be commissioned to re¬ 
quire bail of the said James Franklin for his good conduct during the 
ensuing year.” 

The suggestion of the committee was adopted and passed into a law, 
but the effect of it was null, for the journal eluded the prohibition by 
putting the name of Benjamin Franklin instead of James Franklin at 
the bottom of its columns, and this manoeuvre was supported by public 
opinion. 


APPENDIX Q.—Page 287. 

Thk federal constitution has introduced the jury into the tribunals of 
the Union in the same way as the states had introduced it into their 
own several courts : but as it has not established any fixed rules for the 
choice of jurors, the federal courts select them from the ordinary jury- 
list which each state makes for itself. The laws of the states must 
therefore be examined for the theory of the formation of juries. See 
Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, B. iii., chap. 38, pp. 654- 
659; Sergeant’s Constitutional Law, p. 165. See also the federal laws, 
of the years 1789, 1800, and 1802, upon the subject. 

For the purpose of thoroughly understanding the American princi¬ 
ples with respect to the formation of juries, I examined the laws of 
states at a distance from one another, and the following observations 
were the result of my inquiries. 

In America all the citizens who exercise the elective franchise have 
the right of serving upon a jury. The great state of New York, how¬ 
ever, has made a slight difference between the two privileges, but in a 
spirit contrary to that of the laws of France ; for in the state of New 
York there are fewer persons eligible as jurymen than there are elect¬ 
ors. It may be said in general that the right of forming part of a jury, 
like that of electing representatives, is open to all the citizens; the 
exercise of this right, however, is not put indiscriminately into any 
hands. 

Every year a body of municipal or county magistrates—called select¬ 
men in New England, supervisors in New York, trustees in Ohio, and 
sheriffs of the parish in Louisiana—choose for each county a certain 
•number of citizens who have the right of serving as jurymen, and who 
are supposed to be capable of exercising their functions. These ma¬ 
gistrates, being themselves elective, excite no distrust: their powers, 
like those of most republican magistrates, are very extensive and very 
arbitrary, and they frequently make use of them to remove unworthy 
or incompetent jurymen. 

The names of the jurymen thus chosen are transmitted to the coun¬ 
ty court; and the jury who have to decide any affair are drawn by lot 
from the whole list of names. 

The Americans have contrived in every way to make the common 
people eligible to the jury, and to render the service as little onerous 
as possible. The sessions are held in the chief town of every county; 
and the jury are indemnified for their attendance either by the state or 
the parties concerned. They receive in general a dollar per day, be¬ 
side their travelling expenses. In America the being placed upon the 
jury is looked upon as a burden, but it is a burden w'hich is very sup¬ 
portable. See Brevard’s Digest of the Public Statute Law of South 





APPENDIX. 





\ 





■ ^ 

Carolina, vol. i., pp. 44o and 454, vol. ii-Tl^- 218 and 338; The Gene- • 
ral Laws of Massachusetts^ revised and published by Authority of the 
Legislature, v. ii., pp. 187 and 331; The Revised Statutes of the States-' 
of New York, vol. ii., pp. 411, 643, 717, 720; The Statute Law of the 
State of Tennessee, vol. i., p. 209; Acts of the State of Ohio, pp. 95 
and 210; and Digeste General des Actes de la Legislature de la x 
Louisiane. 




APPENDIX R.—Page 290. 

Ir we attentively examine the constitution of the jury as introduced 
into civil proceedings in England, we shall readily perceive that the 
jurors are under the immediate control of the judge It is true that 
the verdict of the jury, in civil as well as in criminal cases, comprises 
the question of fact and the question of right in the same reply; thus, 
a house is claimed by Peter as having been purchased by him : this is 
the fact to be decided. The defendant puts in a plea of incompetency 
on the part of the vendor : this is the legal question to be resolved. 

But the jury do not enjoy the same character of infallibility in civil 
cases, according to the practice of the English courts, as they do in 
criminal cases. The judge may refuse to receive the verdict; and 
even after the first trial has taken place, a second or new trial may be 
awarded by the court. See Blackstone’s Commentaries, book iii., ch. 24. 


I 

f 


f 




2f4. 92 




.rr: 








■> - 




1L 






'f.Ui 




•tr 






^ I 



^.1 

^2*/ ' * 
h 4 i • * - -» »,«. 


/VIL '| 

i» • • ■■ ■'V'!^. *y 1. 

V 3 h^- 




<_• f • r 

♦ .Irf* •• • ^ .7-2^ 

• f fir-r 


t w- 


ll - 


•r 


Si 


* 




..I 


» 


X i 




^1* 


^». 




•-. ' ^-.i'T 

• . ■• r-t * ' V ' ’ ■ •''■'• . '/ 

'y / Sji 4 


» ,4 w I 


t' ■• ‘ < ' -' ■’ ' >'ti-^ >■'■'••' • ’‘v^ '■- 

7' •‘••r ^ -li^ ; ■ .S • .‘■ " ••-ii. 

J'" ^ K <sfS 


V >■ 



k, > ■ 


-■‘-. ® '^' ' ■' 

■ V- - V ■ • ' V? 

' '''^'^ . 'i. . >= •'- - ■’ 24 ^'j iV.’ 


'• % 








4h 


» ’-r. 


*'^n' 


. -: V ^ 




m 


i 


A 


- J f 




W' 


■-" 4 


W- 

■5 *^‘ * 

9 


I « 


'l I 4t • 


S^* 




Jf> 



♦ ’i ' • ■• J 






t. •• 




f•:>.v ■;. :*i 

"•■ - -- ''t'- 




rfligilt: fi A >' ' "'A 4; . 

‘-^w ' •"■ • ■' • ■ •’■ ‘ •! 

^ >5^., '••'’•;/'J '-T . • ■ 

’ 'iH .’■mC *t* 

■■P^x ft.- ^ . A ■' A .‘ 











If **;, 








































y 










































































































































































































































































































